NationStates Jolt Archive

War Crimes Tribunal

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Decapod Ten

Description: The World Assembly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-written by SilentScope Embassy

This is mighty stretch to be considered global disarmament. I'd peg it as Human Rights, Strong. It starts with stuff "like" the current at vote resolution. That'd be a dead giveaway that it's human rights, but then you go into defining how offenders must be given a fair trial, which leads down a very funny road.

You see the right to fair trial contains a specific line:

Article 6 § That the defendant shall have the right to question any witness who provides evidence.

While yours says:

-The defendant and the victim(s) have the right to bear witness in court, or remain silent.


Depending on your interpretation of your statement, it's either redundant or contradictory. You're saying again that the person has a right to either shut up or testify. Or you are saying that the person has the right to bear witness in court and when done you can then choose to not answer any questions.

But the big deal here is, when your global disarmament resolution starts having possible conflicts with a human rights resolution, you know you're in the wrong category. Think about it, your resolution guarantees the rights of people to be free of unnecessary civilian casualties and then goes on to establish the rights of defendants accused of violating those rights. Nothing about this reduces military budgets, by any measure people will have to spend MORE to fall in line with this resolution.

Oh, and it guarantees a right to a fair trial to people who break the rules, which Right to Fair Trial already does. That was kinda the point.

Your resolutions fails on a couple of other merits though as well, including a contradiction with Rights and Duties.

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

While your resolution has this tacked onto the end:

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

The WA can't issue sanctions on people performing any military activity(including causing civilian causualties), because that's denouncing them. The entire resolution could be seen as a violation of that clause, but it'd probably be a stretch.

Actually the WA itself can't issue sanctions at ALL. What it can do is direct individual nations to do so, this whole clause shouldn't be here. Hell, there's no need to add a penalty section anyhow, in case you were unaware, when a resolution passes, it is automatically enforced, and no WA members will ever be in violation.

*Ahem* I don't think this is legal.

Depending on your interpretation of your statement, it's either redundant or contradictory. You're saying again that the person has a right to either shut up or testify. Or you are saying that the person has the right to bear witness in court and when done you can then choose to not answer any questions.

But the big deal here is, when your global disarmament resolution starts having possible conflicts with a human rights resolution, you know you're in the wrong category. Think about it, your resolution guarantees the rights of people to be free of unnecessary civilian casualties and then goes on to establish the rights of defendants accused of violating those rights. Nothing about this reduces military budgets, by any measure people will have to spend MORE to fall in line with this resolution.

Oh, and it guarantees a right to a fair trial to people who break the rules, which Right to Fair Trial already does. That was kinda the point.

first, some of it may very well be redundant. what is wrong with doing so? if, hypothetically, fair trial resolution gets repealed, these rights are still intact.

you raise the issue of

Article 6 § That the defendant shall have the right to question any witness who provides evidence.

illl also throw in:

Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court.

there is no provision in the fair trial act giving anyone the right to testify. they can remain silent, but they are not guaranteed to be able to testify in their own trial. i see that as a necessary right.

The WA can't issue sanctions on people performing any military activity(including causing civilian causualties), because that's denouncing them.

true. however this proposal does nothing to denounce the conflicts, only the manner in which they happen.

Actually the WA itself can't issue sanctions at ALL. What it can do is direct individual nations to do so, this whole clause shouldn't be here. Hell, there's no need to add a penalty section anyhow, in case you were unaware, when a resolution passes, it is automatically enforced, and no WA members will ever be in violation.

i like realism. yes, this body is omnipotent and no nation will be in violation. then again none of these nations actually exist, and real civilians wont ever die. but then again, i like to think realistically, of what would happen if this was violated. hell, without realism there is no point to anything except clauses 1-4.

as for sanctions, i can easily see how the WA would be able to implement sanctions on its own (granted this is all hypothetical) including the loss of membership status, the loss of services, the loss of committee seats, the increasing of membership dues, etc. now, so far, with 5 WA resolutions and 0 services, or dues its fairly pointless, but with a hint of realism in RPing it becomes a necessary clause.

But the big deal here is, when your global disarmament resolution starts having possible conflicts with a human rights resolution, you know you're in the wrong category. Think about it, your resolution guarantees the rights of people to be free of unnecessary civilian casualties and then goes on to establish the rights of defendants accused of violating those rights. Nothing about this reduces military budgets, by any measure people will have to spend MORE to fall in line with this resolution.

the right to be free from unnecessary civilian casualties? you considder that a right? would a resolution making nukes illegal be human rights because it "guarantees the rights of people to be free of" nukes? because it *MIGHT* raise budgets, which would build new things, mean it fits in advancement of industry? a resolution banning nukes might vary well raise budgets to account for a necessary increase in conventional forces to maintain security, yet that would still be global disarmament.

furthermore, from the description of the human rights category:

Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects?

this proposal most certainly does not "discuss the domestic Civil policies of WA member nations". and i for one, do not see killing civilians as "personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects" unless you have the wierdest personal life ever.

i'll also add that if you examine

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

the category was addressed in the OP and the only modly comment on categorization was in confirmation of this as the category.

i find it ironic that you argue on the one hand for unrealism in assuming it would be impossible to violate this, but on the other hand argue for realism in considering military budget expenditures.

i, as you would have guessed, respectfully disagree with your opinion that it is illegal.

Lets just do this.

Redundancy:
Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the WA has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the WA has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

Almost half of your resolution is in detailing that offenders get a fair trial. That's redundant.

Category: You're not reducing military budgets, you are increasing them. The only realism I'm respecting is the realism of the category descriptions. This will increase military budgets, not decrease them. Reducing civilian casualties does not equate reducing military budgets. If you don't see this as human rights, it's at least International Security, by it's definition.

Contradictions:

there is no provision in the fair trial act giving anyone the right to testify. they can remain silent, but they are not guaranteed to be able to testify in their own trial. i see that as a necessary right.

Well you're only placing conditions on the trials, that's not the point. Your conditions on the trial cannot in any way contradict the right to a fair trial, and should try it's best not to repeat things it's already established.

first, some of it may very well be redundant. what is wrong with doing so? if, hypothetically, fair trial resolution gets repealed, these rights are still intact.

That's the whole point, you can't block a repeal with redundancy in a later resolution. Your best bet would've been:

there is no point to anything except clauses 1-4.


Game Mechanics:
I'm saying though that you can't have the WA issue sanctions because it's a game mechanics violation. The WA does not have that power, so you can't GIVE it that power in a resolution. You can ask individual nations to do so, but you cannot have the WA do it.


Lastly, a nuke ban would actually remove weapons.... this will force us to create NEW ones, in addition to the old ones.

Needless to say, the heavy handed nature of this will force us to vote against it should it come to vote, but I'm hoping that does not happen.

the category was addressed in the OP and the only modly comment on categorization was in confirmation of this as the category.Wait... what? All I see is me saying is isn't Social Justice.

As a Subistratican historian, with emphasis in the so-named Years of Egress, I can tell you that this resolution is a direct contradiction of our nation's long-held military tradition.

We our an "All things are fair in war" nation; on the occasions when we have gone to battle, it is always with the intent of doing whatever is necessary to emerge victorious. Our soldiers will utilise any methods to defeat the enemy (short of causing harm to other Subistraticans if it can be avoided). Our past enemies have fought in similar matters; I have read accounts of incidents peformed both by our soldiers and against my own motherland that would turn anyone's stomach.
However, we will always defend our actions, and I will not be the first to politically denounce our traditions, no matter how deplorable they may be.

I did not lend this proposal my support, and I will be certain to vote against it when it comes to vote.

We will support this proposal strongly. If those mods block it in any way, just change that part and bring it back. As weird we are, we do not care about the category in which this should fall. But that can be changed to, so just repost it (in the right category) and ask the nation who did support it, to do that again, and soon you are back on enough approvals.

Intelligent people now that wars are bad, but that bad wars are worse. So keeping the war limited by rules, will give those who are in a war a better change to revive after they won or lost the war.

Warm greetings,
Cocoamok,
Co-ordinator of The Wierd Anarchists
WA-delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

However, we will always defend our actions, and I will not be the first to politically denounce our traditions, no matter how deplorable they may be.


ok. sweet. let my drunk ass be the first to deplore and denounce your nation's actions. that is the reason i seek to make such actions illegal. when Decapod Ten was squishing the squash of the squash planet under a previous government, my partyy was a radiacl sect against our actions. that was one of our motives for proposing this porposal.

We will support this proposal strongly. If those mods block it in any way, just change that part and bring it back.

i would indeed good sir, and i thank kyou for your show of support.

Wait... what? All I see is me saying is isn't Social Justice.

i also see you NOT saying it isnt global disarmament. ive seen many other threads (some started by me, others not) where mods have immediately (as in, before the 5 days before your posted response) where you have posted comments intended to correct the categorical illegalities. (the funding proposals for example, mine and st. edmunds). this lack of correction i see as a confirmation. i apologize for not being specific enough with my preceding statementsl.

The Dourian Embassy

Almost half of your resolution is in detailing that offenders get a fair trial. That's redundant.

no. no it is not. so long as i am specifying rights that are not included in any legislation refered to before this proposal, it is, by definition, not redundant. where else does it specify the right of a government to appoint legal advisors? that wouldnt make sense in the fair trial resolution, which was intended for domestic trials and not international ones. the entirety of clause #6 is adding rights that ARE NOT included in any other legislation. i dont get where you say "almost half" because one clause consistinf of 1048 characters out of 3292 is certainly not close to half, but that is fairly moot.

Category: You're not reducing military budgets, you are increasing them. The only realism I'm respecting is the realism of the category descriptions. This will increase military budgets, not decrease them. Reducing civilian casualties does not equate reducing military budgets. If you don't see this as human rights, it's at least International Security, by it's definition.

well, im still going to go back to the nuke-illegalization example. if nukes wre made illegal, it would raise military budgets to pay for their disposal, it would raise military budgets to pay for increasing conventional forces to maintain the same level of defensive preparations, yet nobody would ever argue that making nukes illegal isnt disarmament. that's just nuts. what proposal that mandates changes in tactics wouldnt temporarily raise military budgets? hell, what change in military policy wouldnt temporarily increase military budgets at all, given that any disarmament would require the changing of military tactic manuals? is this category thus completely irrelevant and useless? no.

Well you're only placing conditions on the trials, that's not the point. Your conditions on the trial cannot in any way contradict the right to a fair trial, and should try it's best not to repeat things it's already established.

im just going to emphasize:

6. DECLARES that the WAWCT tribunals are to grant suspects a trial fair in every respect.

yeah, that's right, im quoting myself. but its necessary nomatter how arrogant quoting yourself is....... i, as the text of the debate before this proposal was submitted shows, intended completely for a definition of fair trial to exist, and that the defendants would have those rights PLUS the rights guaranteed by this resolution. it is not redundant if it is new. as i have asked, please outline where any of the rights in clause 6 are redundant.

That's the whole point, you can't block a repeal with redundancy in a later resolution. Your best bet would've been:

is this an incomplete thought? because im confused what my best bet would've been. how am i blocking repeal? again, all the rights guaraneetd in this proposal arent given anywhere else.

Game Mechanics:
I'm saying though that you can't have the WA issue sanctions because it's a game mechanics violation. The WA does not have that power, so you can't GIVE it that power in a resolution. You can ask individual nations to do so, but you cannot have the WA do it.

am i missing something? where are the WA's powers spelled out? im not scarcastic when i say: i would truly like to see the powers of the WA listed. i have yet to see that, and have had no inkling of their existence.

Lastly, a nuke ban would actually remove weapons.... this will force us to create NEW ones, in addition to the old ones.

the removal of nukes would cost money, and raise military budgets, which by your logic wouldnt thusly be global disarmament. awesome. furthermore, this proposal will force the removal of weapons, those that cannot comply with clauses 1&2. also, the removal of nukes might require th addition of forces, as conventional forces might be needed to increase to maintain security levels [RL example: pakistan relys heavily on nukes because it cannot compete conventionally with india. removal of nukes would increase pakistani need for conventional forces and thus increase their military budget.]

i simply reject your assertion that this would increase military spending. not only do i suggest that by your logic no proposal could ever be submitted as global disarmament, but that this would, overall, reduce worldwide military spending by reducing the burden of states to protect their populace. if it is illegal to wipe a strategically unimportant city off the map, then no military must be used to protect said city.

if it is illegal to wipe a strategically unimportant city off the map, then no military must be used to protect said city.


Except for the fact that only about 20% of all nations will face such limitation, whereas the rest of the non-world assembly members will be free to do whatever the hell they want to.

I'm finding it harder and harder to reply with your non-answers.

ok. sweet. let my drunk ass be the first to deplore and denounce your nation's actions. that is the reason i seek to make such actions illegal. when Decapod Ten was squishing the squash of the squash planet under a previous government, my partyy was a radiacl sect against our actions. that was one of our motives for proposing this porposal.
Well, I certainly can't find offense in being denounced by a "radiacl [sic]" with a "drunk ass."

is this an incomplete thought? because im confused what my best bet would've been. how am i blocking repeal? again, all the rights guaraneetd in this proposal arent given anywhere else.
[OOC: Are you serious? Dourian's line technically ended with a quote from your previous post, which wouldn't show up when you quoted him/her/them.
Technically, it would've been more like: That's the whole point, you can't block a repeal with redundancy in a later resolution. Your best bet would've been: "there is no point to anything except clauses 1-4."
Sorry, but I find misquoting to be dangerously dishonest and really low, especially when the intent is to make the person being quoted look foolish.]


am i missing something? where are the WA's powers spelled out? im not scarcastic when i say: i would truly like to see the powers of the WA listed. i have yet to see that, and have had no inkling of their existence.
[OOC: I'm sure one of the mods/admins can assist you with that, especially when it comes to the specifics of what does and does not constitute a game mechanics violation.]

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

Great! Maniway will respond by declaring its entire citizenry civilian, and thus immune from any attack by a memberstate. Conversely, every civilian over the age of three will vigorously attempt to repel any invader by whatever means at his or her disposal.



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

Again, no problem. Maniway's citizens each stand prepared to defend Maniwayan territory, thus no need to pretend to anything. So far, we can shoot at you, and you can't shoot back.



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

Being entirely decentralized, either all of Maniway is "of strategic value," or none of it is. Good luck with that due diligence.



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

Uh, done, I think.

I'm not sure whether to applaud and endorse this proposal, or point out its absurdity and walk away.

[OOC: Are you serious? Dourian's line technically ended with a quote from your previous post, which wouldn't show up when you quoted him/her/them.
Technically, it would've been more like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dourian Embassy
That's the whole point, you can't block a repeal with redundancy in a later resolution. Your best bet would've been: "there is no point to anything except clauses 1-4."
Sorry, but I find misquoting to be dangerously dishonest and really low, especially when the intent is to make the person being quoted look foolish.]

by no means was that intentional. inebriated yes, intentional no.

so ill respond to the now better organized thought with a reiteration of my ideas of realism, and realistic necessity of enforcement mechanisms. if we're to pretend that this would be enacted and flawlessly carried out, we are to assume the WA is omnipotent. if we can implement legislation throughout 20,000 nations without fail, and it is never broken, that's ridiculous. and at that point, where the WA is an infallible and omnipotent agency, i question what power it doesnt have.

[OOC: I'm sure one of the mods/admins can assist you with that, especially when it comes to the specifics of what does and does not constitute a game mechanics violation.]

if this proposal were deemed illegal, i would most definitely like, and expect, an explanation with my first strike.

The Dourian Embassy

Except for the fact that only about 20% of all nations will face such limitation, whereas the rest of the non-world assembly members will be free to do whatever the hell they want to.

Indeed. i dont see your point. the threat is undeniably less no matter what nations border, and so security may be lessened. perhaps it was too bold for me to suggest that security could be eliminated, but lessened is definitely true.

ill also add that this really isnt a good argument. are you going to say that an anti-bad-working-conditions proposal puts us at economic disadvantage with regards to non-WA states? yes it does. my proposal will help citizens, civilians, and society in 20,000 nations. trillions of people will be safer. that's damn good in my book.

I'm finding it harder and harder to reply with your non-answers.

ok. not sure how they arent answers, but if you'd like a simpler version.....

Almost half of your resolution is in detailing that offenders get a fair trial. That's redundant.

no. no it isnt. i say fair trial twice? and then i define additional rights that, by virtue of being additional arent redundant.

Category: You're not reducing military budgets, you are increasing them. The only realism I'm respecting is the realism of the category descriptions. This will increase military budgets, not decrease them. Reducing civilian casualties does not equate reducing military budgets. If you don't see this as human rights, it's at least International Security, by it's definition.

what change wouldnt increase military budgets? disarming and removing chemical/bio/nuclear weapons would cost money. are you arguing that no proposal could be disarmament because any change costs money?

Well you're only placing conditions on the trials, that's not the point. Your conditions on the trial cannot in any way contradict the right to a fair trial, and should try it's best not to repeat things it's already established.

they dont contradict it. could you point out an instance where they do?

Game Mechanics:
I'm saying though that you can't have the WA issue sanctions because it's a game mechanics violation. The WA does not have that power, so you can't GIVE it that power in a resolution. You can ask individual nations to do so, but you cannot have the WA do it.

can you back your assertion that the WA doesnt have that power with anything? because right now, youre just saying it, which does not make it true.

Lastly, a nuke ban would actually remove weapons.... this will force us to create NEW ones, in addition to the old ones.

ok, 3 points,
#1 removal costs money, thus raises budgets, so, by your logic, then a nuke ban would not be disarmament.
#2 any nation relying heavily on nukes for protection would have to create conventional forces to maintain the same level of security, this would raise a budget, and so, by your logic, then a nuke ban would not be disarmament.
#3 this proposal would eliminate weapons not capable of complying with clauses 1-3. that's what clause 4 does.

clearer? and if you'd like actual details, please see my other post.

Maniway

Great! Maniway will respond by declaring its entire citizenry civilian, and thus immune from any attack by a memberstate. Conversely, every civilian over the age of three will vigorously attempt to repel any invader by whatever means at his or her disposal.

well i could say reasonable nation theory and roll my eyes, but ill go further. my proposal would not eliminate, or even make killing civilians illegal. by no means. it makes killing civilians without a "due diligence" effort to avoid doing so illegal. i actually was the one to argue for including clause #3 to make sure that attacking civilian areas of strategic value (factories, oil refineries, communication centers, etc.) was legal.

Again, no problem. Maniway's citizens each stand prepared to defend Maniwayan territory, thus no need to pretend to anything. So far, we can shoot at you, and you can't shoot back.


ok, here im just going to say reasonable nation theory. civilians dont shoot. that's the entire point of the word civilian. also going reiterate that this proposal wouldnt make killing civilians illegal. it makes killing them without 'due diligence' to avoid it illegal.

Being entirely decentralized, either all of Maniway is "of strategic value," or none of it is. Good luck with that due diligence.

ummmmm...... im not sure how your nation exists "entirely decentralized" you dont have buildings that can be targeted, or empty fields that there is no point to targeting? i can understand normal decentralization, but have trouble picturing a nation without buildings...... thankfully, the WAWCT can judge whether or not those attacking you act with due diligence or not, i, nor you, have to.

#1 removal costs money, thus raises budgets, so, by your logic, then a nuke ban would not be disarmament.
#2 any nation relying heavily on nukes for protection would have to create conventional forces to maintain the same level of security, this would raise a budget, and so, by your logic, then a nuke ban would not be disarmament.
#3 this proposal would eliminate weapons not capable of complying with clauses 1-3. that's what clause 4 does.

You're twisting my logic. I said that this will require the development of better more high tech means of killing the right people. Dropping a firebomb on a industrial complex that is producing guns, in the heart of a major city, is much less expensive than taking the entire city by force but trying not to kill any civilians while doing it.

A single sniper hides in an occupied apartment building. We can send an assault team into that apartment building, that maybe gets shot at by some of the people inside because it is an invading force, they find the guy, kill him and bam, they're good right? Forget that he knocked off about 5-10 of your soldiers on the streets in the mean time. You're not accounting for the realities of war. Yeah it sucks, because your best bet in that situation, should you have access to it, is to call in close air support to smack the shit out of that entire floor. Not only do you take care of the problem, but the fella in the apartment building across the street thinks twice before doing the same thing.

Come to think of it though, Nukes can't comply with 1, neither can any biological or chemical weapons. Most large bombs can't do the job either(these though, if used in the right situations CAN comply, but nuclear weapons can almost never comply with this).

This resolution makes no exception for weapons manufacturers manned by civilians.

On the other end of the spectrum: I hope Glog never goes to war. I respect his ability to judge accurately the difference between a hunting spear and a war spear, I'm not sure all of his forces will be able to do the same.

You're doing your best to ban aggressive war completely, but that will only effect the World Assembly. Those smart enough to use an Embassy to work within the World Assembly, like myself can use civilians in the manufacture of our nuclear bombs, then dump them on every major city of every WA member without any fear of anything but fairly limited reprisal. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work. This proposal is a one way street, you won't be able to attack Douria except with conventional means. In that case I will, pardon my language "nuke the fuck out of you". Because Douria isn't a WA member, I can attack you with impunity.

That is of course, just me, there are about 57,000 other nations that can do the same thing.

You're not taking the reality of war into consideration, but it seems that you're not taking reality into consideration at all.

We will support this proposal strongly. If those mods block it in any way, just change that part and bring it back. As weird we are, we do not care about the category in which this should fall. But that can be changed to, so just repost it (in the right category) and ask the nation who did support it, to do that again, and soon you are back on enough approvals.

Intelligent people now that wars are bad, but that bad wars are worse. So keeping the war limited by rules, will give those who are in a war a better change to revive after they won or lost the war.

Warm greetings,
Cocoamok,
Co-ordinator of The Wierd Anarchists
WA-delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

The People's Republic of Bessex strongly disagrees. Keeping a war limited by rules will only tempt nations to break those rules thus causing more damage to the unprepared, rule following nations.
The Peoples Republic of Bessex will vote against this legislation if it comes to a vote.

We think this proposal is illegal.
We think having NationState self-defense included in WA Resolution 2 doesn't making it "inalienable."
We think Clause 3 is absolutely unnecessary, as well as the entire concept of defining the War Crimes Tribunal which sounds entirely like The Right to Fair Trial.
On second thought, we find the entire proposal unnecessary excepting Clauses 1 and 2.
We will be voting against, should this be allowed to be voted on.
We think this will give us fantastic material to begin another repealing career should it pass.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Ambassador

If not removed from queue, you may expect our delegation to rise in opposition.

Nêmö Taranton
Ambassaor Plenipotens

Jey,

i saw that you posted, and somehow knew that it would be against me. might i ask why you think it illegal, or are we just stating facts? might i also suggest that i did not reference WAR#2. (whoa..... the irony of that acronym........)

"We think Clause 3 is absolutely unnecessary, as well as the entire concept of defining the War Crimes Tribunal which sounds entirely like The Right to Fair Trial." except for the rights given to war criminals that arent in Fair Trial. as well as government's right to present military adivsors eve be included in fair trial........... as for clause 3, the inherent right of people to target factories, refineries, and other means of maintaining war would not necessarily be done justice.

Dourian Embassy

You're twisting my logic. I said that this will require the development of better more high tech means of killing the right people.

are you disagreeing or agreeing with my assertion that "removal costs money, thus raises budgets" and "any nation relying heavily on nukes for protection would have to create conventional forces to maintain the same level of security, this would raise a budget,"

your non-answers for this respect are difficult to respond to.

Dropping a firebomb on a industrial complex that is producing guns, in the heart of a major city, is much less expensive than taking the entire city by force but trying not to kill any civilians while doing it.

im going to respond to that with only the quote

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

that is why I argued with Silentscope about putting that clause in there! an "industrial complex" is of strategic value!

A single sniper hides in an occupied apartment building. We can send an assault team into that apartment building, that maybe gets shot at by some of the people inside because it is an invading force, they find the guy, kill him and bam, they're good right? Forget that he knocked off about 5-10 of your soldiers on the streets in the mean time. You're not accounting for the realities of war. Yeah it sucks, because your best bet in that situation, should you have access to it, is to call in close air support to smack the shit out of that entire floor. Not only do you take care of the problem, but the fella in the apartment building across the street thinks twice before doing the same thing.

at this point your echoing me........ no serioiusly, your echoing me. to quote my first post in the thread

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

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

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


for the issue of snipers, start reading at post 65, and go down.

Come to think of it though, Nukes can't comply with 1, neither can any biological or chemical weapons. Most large bombs can't do the job either(these though, if used in the right situations CAN comply, but nuclear weapons can almost never comply with this).

if this proposal passes, it would be up to the WAWCT to decide if such weapons, when used, were used with due diligence........ it may very well be possible to do so. for example, nuking a very large industrial complex.

This resolution makes no exception for weapons manufacturers manned by civilians.

yes it does, clause #3.

On the other end of the spectrum: I hope Glog never goes to war. I respect his ability to judge accurately the difference between a hunting spear and a war spear, I'm not sure all of his forces will be able to do the same.

so long as his forces make a duly diligent effort, it is unaffected by this proposal.

You're doing your best to ban aggressive war completely, but that will only effect the World Assembly.

since when must aggressive war kill civilians unnecessarily?

Those smart enough to use an Embassy to work within the World Assembly, like myself can use civilians in the manufacture of our nuclear bombs, then dump them on every major city of every WA member without any fear of anything but fairly limited reprisal. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work. This proposal is a one way street, you won't be able to attack Douria except with conventional means. In that case I will, pardon my language "nuke the fuck out of you". Because Douria isn't a WA member, I can attack you with impunity.

yes. youre right. WA resolutions cannot affect non-WA members. what's your point? i mean i could say my sister nation of Chapek 9 can use its robotic armies to crush yours, but fuck it, that's pointless. Douria can still employ people in unsafe working conditions. what's your point?

i find it hard to respond to your answers SEVERLY limited by the fact that you have not read

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

nor the fact that you apparently have not read clause 3. but that's a cheap shot an ia ppologize.

let me clarify my arguements. with you dourian,

-Clause #3 allows destructions of things with strategic importance, ie factories (whether producing nukes or not!!!), etc. i argued to include it for that purpose.
-the WAWCT defines due diligence and thus prosecutes anyone for not using due diligence no matter what weapon.
-your last line is a good kicker.
-youre right, it will affect only the WA. the only nations i can affect with a WA resolution. i would very gladly ban unnecessary civilian casualties in every one of the 57k nations, but cant. you are trying to ban unsafe workplace standars, but my sister-state Chapek 9 can have its benders bend girders in any conditions it wants. i just dont see your point here.

perhaps, on that, you could be clear for once.

and exercise due diligence

That's pretty easy to understand if you actually follow the definition of that clause. If you send an overwhelming force to take the city, you could eliminate the threat the factory posed, and through those forces ensure minimal civilian casualties. I'm under no compunctions, and I'll be mainly interested in reducing my military casualties, in a similar situation.

As a matter of fact, I could let your troops march into the city, take it, and then nuke the crap out of my own city instead of trying to retake it. That way you have no way to say that you had to bomb it, because it's your responsibility to reduce civilian casualties, not mine. I could even say that you're responsible for bringing a civilian city into a military conflict. Not exactly due diligence, since I'm not required to be as careful as you.

You'll be happily reducing the threat your armies pose to me. I should be supporting this(because it'd be great for me), but I know that some nations really ARE fairly careless.

Saying that "the committee defines it, so your entirely reasonable definition is wrong, it's completely undefined until it's uh... defined..." seems like a cop out. Seriously.

You ask me to be clear, I've been nothing but succinct.

This ties the hands of 20,000 nations in their dealings with 57,000 others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)

Would you understand it better if I put it in caps?

i also see you NOT saying it isnt global disarmament. ive seen many other threads (some started by me, others not) where mods have immediately (as in, before the 5 days before your posted response) where you have posted comments intended to correct the categorical illegalities. (the funding proposals for example, mine and st. edmunds). this lack of correction i see as a confirmation. i apologize for not being specific enough with my preceding statementsl.I also didn't call it a potato; that doesn't make this a tuber. A lack of disapproval doesn't not necessarily denote approval. Honestly, most of your writing is so tortured and (apparently) alcohol-fueled, that I normally don't pay much attention to it. I only looked here because this is in the queue.

I'd like to ask others who are not myself or Decapod, but not necessarily mods(if a mod makes a comment however, that is fine) if they believe this proposal is legal. I do not, but I would like to get some other opinions before pushing for mod review.

We have miscategorization, possibility of contradictions, a fair bit of redundancy, and game mechanics problems with regards to the "sanctions" the World Assembly will be empowered to issue. It, as you can imagine, seems pretty clear to me.

At this point, I think I'm done trying to follow this discussion.
The Decapodian delegate's arguments are confusing at best and, on several occasions, has incorrectly interpreted the arguments of others.

And I certainly will not support a resolution that goes against deep-set Subistratican traditions, no matter how deplorable they may be.

Subistratica is, and will remain, in opposition of this proposal.

A lack of disapproval doesn't not necessarily denote approval.

agreed. i agree that that was not necessecarily approval. i simply reassert that i saw it as approval. your comments that you ignore my comments mainly dont apply here, as it wasnt orriginally me that started this idea. if mods eventually disapprove, it would be the slowest disapproval ive ever seen.

alcohol-fueled,

long personal story why its been four straight days of drinking..... usually isnt.

e to get some other opinions before pushing for mod review.

We have miscategorization, possibility of contradictions, a fair bit of redundancy, and game mechanics problems with regards to the "sanctions" the World Assembly

im pretty sure just by virtue of being in queue that it is under mod review. TMGH's comments being evidence of such review. also, as far as i have ever seen games mechanics violations defined "Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works." you have still yet to show me the games mechanics violation. you claim the WA doesnt have this power. based on what? i am in no way being scarcastic here, if you have information on WA powers, please, please link me to them and this debate can end, otherwise your not backing your assertion with anything.

This ties the hands of 20,000 nations in their dealings with 57,000 others.

as does every other WA resolution! by definition WA resolutions affect only WA nations! are we not to write WA resolutions? are you going to present these arguments that WA resolutions place us at a disadvantage to non-WA members when your workplace safety stuff comes to debate? please, answer me that.

That way you have no way to say that you had to bomb it, because it's your responsibility to reduce civilian casualties, not mine. I could even say that you're responsible for bringing a civilian city into a military conflict. Not exactly due diligence, since I'm not required to be as careful as you....

Saying that "the committee defines it, so your entirely reasonable definition is wrong, it's completely undefined until it's uh... defined..." seems like a cop out. Seriously.

i reject that your definition is reasonable. i reject that your definition is the WAWCT's definition. I reject that conquering a city, and possibly preventing chaos, is undue diligence. i reject that nuclear weapons cannot be used with due diligence. i call you a monster for suggesting you would possibly nuke your own people. im not sure there is a claim you use in that paragraph that i dont reject.

which rejection would you like me to start elaborating on?

you argue that a sniper cant be bombed, i cant see that. how does this resolution prohibit that? if your pointing to clause 1, i humbly disagree. the proposal does not ban killing snipers. it does not ban blowing up buildings. it does not ban killing civilians, it bans kiling them without "due diligence in trying to avoid and/or significantly reduce civilian casualties."

you argue with nukes, but then suggest firebombing industrial complexes should be allowed. i point out that it is allowed. you argue that nukes cannot be used with a duly diligent effort. i argue that a tactical nuke can annihilate that complex. you then tell me its a reasonable definition that firebombs should be able to be used, but nukes in no way could. tactical nukes can easily be used to wipe out factories (a right which you demanded, and already had) or military formations. your argument simply doesnt make any sense.

[RL example: chem weapons were used in WWI. they were mainly used on the battlefields. battlefield use, to kill military personnel=completely legal, because they dont kill civilians in any way. therefore, you are flat out wrong that chem weapons cant be used without due diligence to not kill civilians.]

You ask me to be clear, I've been nothing but succinct.

no you havent.

-please, elaborate on what supports you assertion that the WA does not have the power to issue sanctions, whatever argument you have with the non-WA members im still not sure

-{and please write down how your proposal wouldnt do the same thing..... just so i can bring that up again in a week}

-you argue for redundancy, yet fail to show how anything in this proposal is redundant--to be redundant it has to be done beforehand, please show me where it has been done!

-perhaps you can also explain why you linked me to MAD (http://www.madd.org/)....

i am glad however, to see that you've stopped arguing about how the proposal doesnt allow attacking staregic structures. if we can get past arguments about the power of the WA we might address your hatred of WA resolution that affect only WA members..... ie all of them....

(seriously, if you have a link to the powers of the WA, i simply havent read that page, link me to it and this might all be over, otherwise, please stop making unsupported claims.)

Would you understand it better if I put it in caps?

frankly, so long as it is english i dont care how you write it. ive heard that caps=yelling=rude, but i dont care. i do like the threat of yelling though, very diplomatic of you, the bill o'riley method. nice.



And I certainly will not support a resolution that goes against deep-set Subistratican traditions, no matter how deplorable they may be.

ok. i had no chance to win your vote anyway then.

I'm pretty sure, just by virtue of being in queue, that it is under mod review. TMGH's comments being evidence of such review. As far as I have seen, game mechanics violations are defined as "Things that attempt to change how the WA works." You have still yet to show me the game mechanics violation. You claim the WA doesn't have this power. Based on what? I am in no way being sarcastic here, if you have information on WA powers, please link me to them and this debate can end, otherwise you're not backing your assertion with anything.

For that particular statement, the one where I ask others to voice opinions on the legality of this, so we can see a consensus before this hits the floor, I wasn't talking to you. I know where you stand, and we know where I stand.

I want to see what others have to say on the topic, I know a few folks have voiced their disapproval, but the main question I'm asking is(without having to have a mod review it), "Is this legal or isn't it?".

I am no longer interested in attempting to convince you of the merits of my argument, I apologize.

without having to have a mod review it

thankfully it is the mods who would have to review it to kill it.

I am no longer interested in attempting to convince you of the merits of my argument, I apologize.

figured as much. why continue convoluted arguments?

going to kill one of them a little more though:

you argue that it isnt global disarmament because it raises budgets, and suggest that a nuclear ban would be disarmament because it removes weapons, yet you also argue

Come to think of it though, Nukes can't comply with 1, neither can any biological or chemical weapons.

either im going to be accused of misinterpreting your arguments again...... or you have a logical flaw in that argument.......

just a post for those that would agree with your insane argument for miscategorization.

knew that it would be against me.

Not you, your proposal.

might i ask why you think it illegal,

Duplication, category.

might i also suggest that i did not reference WAR#2.

Exactly, that's part of the problem. You could have simply said that war criminals are subject to the same safeties afforded in Res#2, but you instead decided to duplicate many of its provisions (illegal) and waste space.

I'm going to pop in here with my two cents.

In no way is this Global Disarmament. It's a Category violation. You might make a case for Political Stability (Mild), but it's a long shot. It would probably need some rework.

On the Duplication claim, I'm going to deny that. I don't think the fine details add a whole lot to the overall package, but that's more a matter of taste than of legality. "The right to remain silent" is the only pure duplication I see with Fair Trial, and the Fair Trial line "a fair trial to anyone facing prosecution in their territory" gives Decapod Ten an out on that one, as war crimes may in fact be extra-territorial.

On a purely personal level, I found the proposal to be incredibly hard to read. The grammar is tortured and moves from active to passive from sentence to sentence. It could stand a major readability makeover.

All that said, I'm going to remove it without penalty. Sorry about waiting until it got into queue before I acted, but it's been a busy time.

Here are your approvals for your next telegramming campaign.
Approvals: 152 (Decapod Ten, Ventei, Cordova I, Intelligenstan, Vrall, Namzob, Illyriania, Misplaced States, South Lorenya, WZ Forums, Perpetuating Liberty, lost highlanders, Anarchy works, The rabid platypuses, Mikhals Empire, Eiga-Baka, Daehanguk, Almiot, Decorus Congregatio, Lucanian Shires, The Derrak Quadrant, Crisorbia, Chuck Norris Haters, Slices Right, Our Lord Hedlund, East Hylia, Shang Dang, Ropa-Topia, Wierd Anarchists, Ives-Maxima, Gallantaria, Bataaf, Mautu, Leam Mark Farrar, Candelaria And Marquez, Sensual delights, Aatesio, Setswana, Gina Toscano, Minyos, Black Empire, Gwenstefani, Ephidael, Charlotte Ryberg, Jellydom, die Bueroarbeiteren, Exaequo, Lorii, Kohlenstoff, Kole and Phil, Rheingua, Llama empire, Scififanaticz, Saudi burmia, Maryland and Virginia, Acherea, ka-Spel, The Atreidond Islands, Chazzistan, Ymmij Gnest, Kneetopia, Mengjiang, Sancte Michael, Arenaea and Alesium, Western Qin, Mivvin, Burninated, Erese, Vintage Blue, The Crazy King, Nokvok, Alzonia, Lunar Destiny, Soldnerism, Dewachen, Stephanephpolis, Engul, The 9th Crusade, The Digital Network, Scientific Insight, Bhkistan, Dominant Force, Colonial Timocria, Shafft, Nanisivik, Rome of the Balkans, Shoumenotopia, Death Notes, -Democratic Socialism-, Gilliganstan, Brunelian BG advocates, AlexDuncanland, Liberated Terra, Lidgeland, South Oceana, Kaibal, Tindera, Nova Nova Roma, Suaria, Snomadia, Larcasting, Vacuus Verum, Umco, Szegedorszag, Assbitches, pklanka, Mousehold Heath, Sea Dolphin Lovers, Technoviking, Bretonnian Europa, Top Gunners, Anglo-Arrius, Loxx, Marari, Wot2the, New Old New New York, MercyMe, Freebistan, Ville-Ville, BodGK, Judsland, West Fresno, Aarbearica, 12 Colonies of Kobol, Disillusioned Peoples, Norwedenland, Koshlandia, Pakstania, Psycotia Island, Cahuilla, Indian Gangs, Yakitory, Slacktonovich, Kaplechistan, Jabaca, Sublime Sensimilla, Asyhlo AO, Rotovia-, The Hillow, Death-o-Latina, Kaelere, New Chalcedon, Drumpard, Zinaire, Istrians, Worldia555, Adamborough, Waitesland, The Sobani, NyadII, Merapi, Brabantia Borealis)

might i ask this thread be locked?