NationStates Jolt Archive

Under discussion now is the draft proposal for Neutrality of Nations, which alludes to NS-UN Resolution 133 (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=134). This is the latest version as of July 25th: keep your eyes peeled for possible updates.

Neutrality of Nations
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending (and improve world peace).

Category: Global Disarmament, Strength: Mild, Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

ACKNOWLEDGING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

The World Assembly,

BELIEVES that:
- It is a right of any Member Nation that is uninvolved in a said war to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- A Neutral Nation must observe obligations to justify its neutrality in return for protection from Belligerent Nations.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
- War as a armed conflict between two or more Nations;
- A Neutral Nation as a nation that has formally declared itself neutral before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or hostility existing between two or more other nations, and;
- A Belligerent Nation as a nation that is currently involved in said war or a nation that is supporting the armed forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Aid or provide for armed forces of any Belligerent Nation or its military allies, including but not limited to: Air, Naval or Territorial Forces (but see §5);
b) Actively or covertly act to assist or support any armed forces or agents of an active Belligerent Nation or its military allies, through force or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of the said war regardless of the level of secrecy, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict;

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war;
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded, storage of dead personnel or other war-related activity without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Enter a Neutral Nation to resource supplies for military operations, such as weapons, personnel, armaments or agents, or;
d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:
a) Directly or indirectly engage in trade or exchanges, of any kind of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with Belligerent Nations, and;
b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by Belligerent Nations through military operations.

4. CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of §1 or §3 is knowingly and deliberately violated;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time, or;
- If the war which neutrality is sanctioned on ceases to exist and the WA is satisfied that a similar conflict will not break out for a sensible period of time.

5. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Relief Aid to civilian populations and the military wounded, but recommends that casualties receiving humanitarian aid should not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that a Neutral Nation may at their discretion, adapt any of the measures above where appropriate to protect themselves from Belligerent Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly, involving but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, or economic/trade sanctions.

APPLAUDS Nations that avoid armed conflicts for the purpose of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

Notes (Still here for historical purposes only):

Annotation is used for easy reference to the draft.

General: This resolution is intended to:
- Protect Member Nations who have formally declared themselves neutral from enemy action against them;
- To ensure Member Nations who declare themselves neutral act properly as a neutral nation; i.e, nations cannot claim themselves as neutral when actually smuggling supplies to a country that is fighting;
- Allow humanitarian aid from neutral nations, to civilians and casualties, but not to knowingly support war.

Section 5a and 5b is in response to the implementation of WA Resolution 5 buy the same author, but does not mention it due to the house of cards rule. Relief aid is considered not an act of war.

Section 5c is drafted to ensure Member Nations are able to maintain neutrality from a nation outside the scope of the WA, as Belligerency is regardless of WA membership status. Military Action or supporting such which involves only one WA nation and multiple non-member nations, for example, is still considered as a violation of neutrality.

Currently under consideration, is to allow neutral nations to accept nationals from Belligerent nations that have either fled from conscription or fled for conscience of thought, provided that they become nationals of a neutral nation. This is currently disputed as unfinished.

The provisions of line 2b are troublesome. Suppose a Member State A has a longstanding trade agreement with another Member State B, and that the latter then goes to War with a third Member State C. A declares itself Neutral. Would trade between A and B necessarily have to cease for the duration of the conflict? Might continuance of the relationship constitute aid to a Belligerent, and thus negate Neutral status? Conversely, might cessation of the relationship not be construed as aiding C, and also endanger Neutrality?

Perhaps any such pre-existing arrangements or relationships might be somehow listed as such on the Declaration of Neutrality document, so as to ensure transparency. The effect might then be similar in principle to a ship's manifest, or perhaps an insurance policy's exceptions to coverage.

The preamble is excellent. It presents a clear and strong international justification.

Clause 3 can be slightly reworded to match the style of the other clauses:

3. The status of Neutrality is considered invalid if any part of Section 2 is violated.

Could become:

3. CONSIDERS the status of Neutrality invalid if any of the above conditions are violated.

You can naturally change "any of the above conditions" to "any part of the second clause" or "Section 2". It all works. :)

I think i got the idea behind this proposal. But if it is so that:
I. RECOGNIZING that all Member Nations possess the right:
a) To declare War over an enemy;
b) To defend themselves from enemy attack, or;
c) To declare themselves as a Neutral Nation;

What is the effect of binding the ones engages in wars not attacking the neutrals, they can declare war on them anytime they want, so declaring yourselves neutral does not help you so much.

It would be something that if someone is neutral in a conflict is attacked (or declared war opon by one of the war engaged sides) all neutrals would declare war on the attacker.

So I do not see much in this proposal till explained what is so usefull on this proposal.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA-delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

This is a proposal the Kingdom of Bardar would support if it ever made it to the votes.

You will probably need Wolfish's permission before stealing so much of his proposal text.

I've actually just wired him a telegram to ask his permission.

4. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade, occupy, or utilise a Neutral Nation during time of war or conflict, regardless of justification;

confused what utilise means in this context, does this prohibit trade? perhaps even of humanitarian goods?

Small grammar note on 4b:

b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit <b>an</b> mutual consent of all parties

an should be changed to and.
Other than that, I cannot currently see anything wrong with it, and Subistratica will give it our support.

Again, I hope someone can explain me why it is always possible to declare war on a nation (as bad as it could be) but that it should be forbidden to attack, invade or so a neutral state (because you only have to declare war on them first, than it will be allowed)?

So I see that this proposal explains what a neutral state is, but nothing I see what use it is.

Greetings,
Cocoamok the confused

The government of Charlotte Ryberg is please to announce that Wolfish has given its permission so long as he his counted as a co-author.

Original Message
Thank you for your message regarding your upcoming proposal. I'd be honoured to be counted as a co-author.

Please let me know if I can offer any assistance as you move this forward.

Wolfish.

Now on to the revision:

Neutrality of Nations
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

RECOGNIZING that all Member Nations possess the right:
- To declare War over an enemy;
- To defend themselves from enemy attack;
- To declare themselves as a Neutral Nation, and;
- To denounce use of the military by all means.

CONCERNED that some Neutral Member Nations may be unable to preserve the state of neutrality without support and respect from the International Community;

BELIEVES:
- That it is an unconditional right of a Member Nation which are not belligerents in any conflict to make a claim of neutrality;
- That a Neutral Nation must abide by a set of obligations to maintain their status as Neutral.

The World Assembly,

1. DEFINES
a) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
b) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at War;

2. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to:
- Air Forces
- Naval Forces
- Land and Territorial Forces
- Agents, and others undertaking to acquire the goods and supplies of war.
b) Actively, or covertly act to hinder or assist any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies, or any foreign combatant force/militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action, and;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict.

2.1. CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid if any part of Section 2 is violated.

3. BELIEVES that any Member Nation publicly declaring Neutrality must be afforded special rights stated in Section 4, for the period during in which they maintain or ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

4. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade, occupy, or utilize a Neutral Nation during time of war or conflict, except for peaceful purposes only;

b) Declare war on a Neutral Nation regardless of justification;
c) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all parties;
d) Exploit or Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: food, ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid;

5. ALLOWS:
a) The provision of Humanitarian Aid by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of Neutral Nations, to civilian populations and to the military wounded;
b) The provision of trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes only, and;
c) Such NGOs to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the sole purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid.

6. EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion of a Member Nation, to use any or all measures deemed appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly, from violating the terms of Neutrality, including: All diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions and embargoes, declaration of Belligerent Nation status, and declaration of Belligerency.

7. PRAISES all Member Nations that denounce the use of the military by all means, for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

confused what utilise means in this context, does this prohibit trade? perhaps even of humanitarian goods?

That is a very good question, I was wondering the exact same thing when I read all of clause 4.

I think the answer lies in clause 5:

5. ALLOWS:
a) The provision of Humanitarian Aid by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of Neutral Nations, to civilian populations and to the military wounded;
b) The provision of trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes only, and;
c) Such NGOs to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the sole purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid.

Basically humanitarian support is still OK, but the protection of neutrality would disappear if a government were funneling say art treasures that were captured during a war. (Just one example).

Clause 5 is what I really like about this proposal.

C.R. is this basically right?

7. PRAISES all Member Nations that denounce the use of the military by all means, for the benefit of world peace.

I am a big fan of having a short concluding clause to summarize the intent of the resolution. However, I would like to suggest that maybe this clause could be rewritten to reflect that it military conflicts are the problem, using military for defense or response to emergencies makes perfect sense. :)

One way might be to say:

7. PRAISES all Member Nations that avoid military conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Switzerland has a HUGE military.

Furthermore, since the resolution is a Political Stability category right now, restricting the use of a military better fits with the current category than discouraging its existence.

- That it is an unconditional right of a Member Nation which are not belligerents in any conflict to make a claim of neutrality;
Grammar, on two counts: should be '...of a Member Nation that is not a belligerent...'.
- That a Neutral Nation must abide by a set of obligations to maintain their status as Neutral.
As a suggestion, 'to justify their neutrality' might be snappier.
a) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
Can you explain what this means? You will no doubt be asked during the doubt why a nation cannot simply state that it is neutral, in general.
b) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at War;
This would be a perfect opportunity for the WA to do what the UN never did, and offer a legal definition of 'war'.
7. PRAISES all Member Nations that denounce the use of the military by all means, for the benefit of world peace.
This doesn't make much sense. In addition to grammar, though, the actual meaning is objectionable: 'the military' can be used 'for the benefit of world peace', unless you are suggesting 'peacekeeping operations' are contradictions in terms. (The same objection stands for the final subclause of your 'Recognising...' introduction.)

-- Samantha Benson

I'd think this might face a categorization hurdle with it almost banning warfare against anyone that declares themselves "neutral"(and of course, abides by the rules).

Just because a nation is neutral now, doesn't mean it will remain so later. You're going to be providing a lot of protection to nations that will allow them to build up their military might before attacking anyone.

I will demand the right to attack "neutral" nations before I support this legislation. Removal of 3 and 4 is a requirement for this to be good international law. It will also assist, I imagine, in this proposal not going beyond political stability and into global disarmament. 7 is entirely superfluous and controversial enough that you may not want to include it. If you leave 3 and 4 in this, it definitely needs an upgrade to strong from significant though(but 3 and 4 almost push this into miscategorized).

I'd think this might face a categorization hurdle with it almost banning warfare against anyone that declares themselves "neutral"(and of course, abides by the rules).

Just because a nation is neutral now, doesn't mean it will remain so later. You're going to be providing a lot of protection to nations that will allow them to build up their military might before attacking anyone.

I will demand the right to attack "neutral" nations before I support this legislation. Removal of 3 and 4 is a requirement for this to be good international law. It will also assist, I imagine, in this proposal not going beyond political stability and into global disarmament. 7 is entirely superfluous and controversial enough that you may not want to include it. If you leave 3 and 4 in this, it definitely needs an upgrade to strong from significant though(but 3 and 4 almost push this into miscategorized).

To address your first point, which I agree should be addressed by the proposal (good call), would making nations neutral to specific conflicts work better? In practice most of us will fall under this category. Mikitivity literally isn't gonna mind if most World Assembly members beat on each other a little bit ... though we do need to protect Yelda, as they export a fantastic cheese. ;)

Would conflict specific neutrality address your concerns for clauses 3 & 4. Since clause 4 is an extension of clause 3, CR would make a slight rewording to clause 3 to maybe keep us all happy? :)

I think my suggest for a reworded clause 7 should be included. Make it shorter, but having a nice feel good at the end that summarizes the goal is important. The auto generated one line summary at the top just is too generic.

Your suggestion for rewording 7 would make it acceptable to me.

3 and 4 would benefit immensely from a definition of war, as a first step to cleaning up the problems it might cause.

No matter how you limit it right now, a nation under attack that does not fight back and does not declare war(If we define a state of war as existing only when both parties declare it), but instead declares itself neutral would be free of the invaders.

You could avoid the hurdle of restricting that down to "not possible" by defining war, but the definition may still lend itself to that problem.

You'd need something like "Defines 'War' as two or more nations that are in a state of hostility or rivalry;" to be successful there I'd think. Rivalry allows enough leeway to deal with nations that are just biding their time.

Beyond that, 2.1 might want to include the words "Knowingly and deliberately" to the conditions of violation.

The recognizing clause that leads off the proposal, is not merely fluff. It outlines some action. It should be in the active clause section. It's inclusion leaves this squarely out of the political stability category after some thinking, because it's recognizing the right to declare war(therefore preserving the choices governments have). No need to include the denunciation of the use of military either, it's just one more a sticking point that you don't have to include.

Also, I'm going to kick myself for this later, because I can't see myself ever supporting this, but "except for peaceful purposes only" is far to much wiggle room for a clause that's supposed to stop me from invading neutral nations(it's also redundant, if you intend to keep it, "except" or "only", not both). I know this whole proposal is supposed to keep us from just saying we're "protecting" a nation by invading it. That little wiggle room means it won't really be doing that.

I'd argue that there are a few style problems, in that you use words and phrases before defining them, when you do not have to. "Belligerent" and "neutral nations" are the offenders here.

I may have more on this later, but that's all I can come up with right now.

This is just another revision although I think a completely new approach may be on the cards...

RECOGNIZING that all nations have the right:
- To declare war on an enemy;
- To defend themselves from enemy attack;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that nations may desire:
- To declare themselves as a Neutral Nation, or;
- To decommission their armed forces.

CONCERNED that some Neutral Member Nations may be unable to preserve the state of neutrality without support and respect from the International Community;

The World Assembly,

BELIEVES:
- That it is an unconditional right of a Member Nation that is not a belligerent in any conflict to make a formal claim of neutrality;
- That a Neutral Nation must abide by a set of obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES
a) ‘War’ as an armed confrontation between two or more Belligerent Nations, which often results in death and destruction;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that does not participate or support in War, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at War;

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation, and thereby;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to:
- Air Forces
- Naval Forces
- Land and Territorial Forces
- Agents, and others undertaking to acquire the goods and supplies of war.
b) Actively, or covertly act to hinder or assist any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies, or any foreign combatant force/militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action, and;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict.

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid if any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated.

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare war, Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid;

3. ALLOWS:
a) Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of all nations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid, to civilian populations and to the military wounded, and;
b) The provision of trade (but not of war booty) between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes only.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

Nations probably shouldn't be allowed to increase their military strength while maintaining "neutral" status. That may clear up a few problems.

Nations probably shouldn't be allowed to increase their military strength while maintaining "neutral" status. That may clear up a few problems.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Because two countries halfway round the world go to war, all military construction has to cease? Given the size of NationStates, neutrality is, I suspect, going to be the norm. It'd be silly to prohibit nations from preparing for another conflict (particularly given there is no proscription on fighting a war with one nation while simultaneously remaining neutral over a different conflict). We would flatly oppose the addition of such language.

EDIT:

I answered before I realized the current draft had eliminated conflict-specific neutrality. That was a mistake on my part.

It is also a mistake to eliminate conflict-specific neutrality. A nation should be able to declare itself neutral with regard to a specific conflict without renouncing war altogether. The only reason I questioned the language was to make sure the author understood why it was written that way, as it was directly lifted from "Rights of Neutral Nations", yet our research has turned up a good deal of discussion that went into that particular clause. We would vastly prefer the original definition of neutrality be used.

-- Samantha Benson

First, I'd like to say that these draft proposal discussions are really the way my government likes to see the World Assembly operate. Nations are ironing out better wording on an international issue at a point when amendments are possible!

Second, Mikitivity agrees with QoD and others that the proposal should focus on conflict-specific neutrality.

Yes, I made an assumption as to the draft specifying conflict specific neutrality when I made that statement. Three nations, two at war, and one that's neutral but has interests in the outcome. The neutral one just builds up it's military force until one of the two loses, then beats the shit out of the winner. I'd like us to avoid protecting that.

Yes, I made an assumption as to the draft specifying conflict specific neutrality when I made that statement. Three nations, two at war, and one that's neutral but has interests in the outcome. The neutral one just builds up it's military force until one of the two loses, then beats the shit out of the winner. I'd like us to avoid protecting that.

In absence of a resolution on this subject, what is to prevent that now?

For example, couldn't a government, let's call it Moonbeam, stand and watch two other nations bludgeon each other to the stone age, and then waltz in and take them both out later?

Oh absolutely, and I'm not questioning that(if the other two nations want to be idiots, that's fine), I'm questioning giving that nation protections, so that if either of the two wishes to attack that neighbor, they could do so.

Oh absolutely, and I'm not questioning that(if the other two nations want to be idiots, that's fine), I'm questioning giving that nation protections, so that if either of the two wishes to attack that neighbor, they could do so.

Ah, I understand. :)

So would it be fair to say the question is, "What is the benefit of neutrality to parties to a conflict?"

I would be much more comfortable with encouragements and a statement of WA policy on the matter than a blanket requirement of non-interference with neutrality.

The question is, as it stands is, "Does a declaration of neutrality constitute a form of defense?" Followed very shortly by "Should it?"

I'm quite enjoying this debate. I recall the first time around a similar (if not quite as detailed) debate on the proposal.

I won't involve myself here (as Charlotte Ryberg is doing all the right things)...but would encourage you all to continue this fine example of working on this together.

Neutrality is the only solution that can commonly please every nation involved in the World Assembly.It is in my opinion that the expansion of military is only acceptable in the form of a national defense force and that the use of any military equipment or forces in any other operation besides that of a national defense force against invading nations is illegal ans should be immediately ceased by the assembly.I implore that not only this resolution goes to floor but also it wins acclaim as the promoter of protection for all nations big and small in the protection of peace,neutrality and speech . No nations greed should enslave a less powerful nation and no supposed nesessaty should force a country into surrendering her neutrality and backing a war that will supposedly lead to the freedom and liberation of other countries particularly as this is the most widespread use and example of propeganda used by larger nations as an excuse
to invade smaller more vulnerable countries
Antoin Fletcher
Prime Minister of Mojaro

Oversizing rule added but seeking to keep the size of the neutral nation's forces, if any, at an appropriate size. Also, option to end neutrality, which is unlikely to be used by Charlotte if it comes to effect, is added.

----

RECOGNIZING that nations have the right:
- To declare war on an enemy;
- To defend themselves from enemy attack;

BUT RECOGNIZING that nations may desire:
- To declare themselves as a Neutral Nation;
- To decommission their armed forces;

CONCERNED that some Neutral Member Nations may be unable to preserve the state of neutrality without support and respect from the International Community;

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in any conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES
a) ‘War’ as an armed confrontation between two or more Nations, which often results in death and destruction;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that does not participate or support in any War, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at War;

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to:
- Air Forces
- Naval Forces
- Land and Territorial Forces
- Agents, and others undertaking to acquire the goods and supplies of war.
b) Actively, or covertly act to hinder or assist any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies, or any foreign combatant force/militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict, and;
d) Oversize their forces if they have one, such that when neutrality ends in any way, they possess an unfair advantage over others;

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated, or;
- If a nation wishes to cease status of neutrality at any time.

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid;

3. ALLOWS:
a) Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of all nations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid, to civilian populations and to the military wounded, and;
b) The provision of trade (but not of war booty) between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes only.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

----

I'm afraid it's now past the 3500 word limit.

I'm afraid it's now past the 3500 word limit.

Perhaps reduce the double preamble by axing this:

RECOGNIZING that nations have the right:
- To declare war on an enemy;
- To defend themselves from enemy attack;

BUT RECOGNIZING that nations may desire:
- To declare themselves as a Neutral Nation;
- To decommission their armed forces;

CONCERNED that some Neutral Member Nations may be unable to preserve the state of neutrality without support and respect from the International Community;?

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in any conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES
a) ‘War’ as an armed confrontation between two or more Nations, which often results in death and destruction;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at War;

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to:
- Air Forces
- Naval Forces
- Land and Territorial Forces
- Agents, and others undertaking to acquire the goods and supplies of war.
b) Actively, or covertly act to hinder or assist any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies, or any foreign combatant force/militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict, and;
d) Oversize their forces if they have one, such that when neutrality ends in any way, they possess an unfair advantage over others;

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated, or;
- If a nation wishes to cease status of neutrality at any time.

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid;

3. ALLOWS:
a) Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of all nations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid, to civilian populations and to the military wounded, and;
b) The provision of trade (but not of war booty) between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes only.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

----

It should be 3226, according to the Cut & Paste Character counter (http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml) I used since yesterday. I can confirm that it counts line breaks.

I still don't understand why you have eliminated the mechanism of the old resolution in favour of this general neutrality. It is entirely possible for there to be a war existing (such as the current 'Monarch Loyalist War' in Wysteria) with regards to which a nation wishes to remain neutral, with there simultaneously being a war (such as the 'Yeldan Civil War' in Antarctic Oasis) with regards to which a nation wishes to be involved. There is nothing Quackiavellian* to this, and there is no reason for such behaviour to be prohibited by international law.

I fear this proposal is drifting away from the protection of neutrality towards the promotion of an unreasonable isolationism. All a nation does by remaining neutral from a conflict is agree not to participate in it, and it is thereby wholly reasonable they be protected from its excesses. Why this should somehow affect their involvement in an entirely unrelated conflict escapes me.

I would really appreciate an answer to this objection, rather than yet another draft. It's more important to get the idea right at this early stage.

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

* Nicolas Quackiavelli was a sixteenth century Quodite political thinker whose views on secular republicanism have come to be associated with political gamesmanship and raison d'Etat.

To build upon Ambassador Benson's position, nations should have the ability to protect their interests. Let's say that a large minority of Miervatians were living in the Quintessence of Dust and suddenly QoD declared neutrality and slaughtered the Miervatian population. (NOTE: there is absolutely no reason to think this would happen, and it is the long standing friendship between these two nations why I feel comfortable in using a silly example.) My government might want to seek a declaration of war as a means to discourage a "neutral" QoD from continuing such an action.

Both my government and QoD agree that peace should be an objective of the World Assembly, and my government in particular strongly supports a resolution granting neutral status to nations in particular conflicts. However, I do see Ambassador Benson's point.

Our goal would be to have a resolution which essentially protects nations that agree to cease hostile actions with respect to on-going conflicts. In other words, we'd like to see that the declaration of neutrality must be specific to a conflict and only established after a conflict has started. Furthermore, it should only last so long as the neutral party does not get involved. The tricky part is involvement may be a matter of opinion -- but we can address that later.

Howie T. Katzman
Ambassador, Confederated City States of Mikitivity

OOC:
This is actually a fun debate. Wolfish thanks for sticking around and helping CR. :)

OOC, If you point to whatever part of the resolution that is actually causing concern, it would be good so that I won't think I have to rewrite it when in fact it may not be required. Thanks!

-- Lulu

Ok, what I am talking about is the change from
1. DEFINES
a) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
to
DEFINES
...
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that does not participate or support in any War, and;
I'm arguing the original language was much better.

-- Samantha Benson

Okay, so it should become/revert to:

DEFINES
a) ‘War’ as an armed confrontation between two or more Nations, which often results in death and destruction;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at War;

--Amanda

Well, yes, I'd certainly prefer that!

I updated the most recent version (#32) with the old definition. Any more suggestions?

That change covers my government's position statement. :)

The next clause we have a question about is:

3. ALLOWS:
a) Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of all nations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid, to civilian populations and to the military wounded, and;
b) The provision of trade (but not of war booty) between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes only.

My impression is that a NGO is automatically given right of entry and passage into a neutral nation, without needing approval from that nation.

Am I reading this correctly? Is there a better way to look at this?

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

I'll weigh in tommorrow night, it looks better though.

3. ALLOWS trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes as long as the items traded are not acquired through conquest.

4. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through, or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid to civilian populations and to the military wounded.

I think that works better, but I may be wrong.

There is now a problem with the wording though,

b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;

Defining "Neutral Nations" as anyone who has declared themselves neutral with regards to a specific conflict means: Those who declare themselves neutral with regards to a specific conflict are protected from all belligerent nations in any conflict.

I don't think the adequate wording can be added to fix that without going over the charactor limit.

I can't even think of a way for it to work really. I'd prefer it if you reverted back to the "any war" language, it's simpler and helps with another concern of mine: One nation declares neutrality in an ongoing conflict of it's larger neighbors and then goes on an invasion spree of it's smaller neighbors with protection. It should be all or nothing, as far as I'm concerned.

Then again under the current wording the people they're attacking would actually be barred from attacking the offending nation as well, assuming they're all WA members.

Yes, it is going in the good direction. I didn't like it also that NGO's could do wathever they liked in neutral states. But that is fixed excellent. Please stick also to neutral to a specificic conflict, no need for isolationism either.
Still worries me the fact on declearing war on neutrals.
But as I see it, you can always say it is a new conflict so neutral has no impact than (or not?)
Maybe a resolution is needed also on declearing wars. (Before a WA member is allowed to start a war it has to do (councelling WA or whatever)?
But I will support it anyways, we Wierd Anarchists hate wars.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

Defining "Neutral Nations" as anyone who has declared themselves neutral with regards to a specific conflict means: Those who declare themselves neutral with regards to a specific conflict are protected from all belligerent nations in any conflict.

I don't think the adequate wording can be added to fix that without going over the charactor limit.

I can't even think of a way for it to work really. I'd prefer it if you reverted back to the "any war" language, it's simpler and helps with another concern of mine: One nation declares neutrality in an ongoing conflict of it's larger neighbors and then goes on an invasion spree of it's smaller neighbors with protection. It should be all or nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
The solution to the wording problem is pretty simple: a redefinition of 'Belligerent Nation' to those involved in 'said war or armed conflict'.

-- Samantha Benson

I actually like this resolution. It sets up a protection for WA nations that don't want to become involved in a military conflict, which will protect their populations, culture and economies (whereas non-WA nations have no such protection). The result is that war within WA nations can be more self-contained, and there are less regional and world-wide impacts on innocent peoples and states. This produces an economic advantage of the WA over the rest of the world (again, because we're not spreading war helter-skelter over warring and non-warring nations), and would be a good IC incentive to join the WA. It would also protects small nations from being forced into conflicts with larger WA nations--which is usually the case in wars, the big dogs bully around the little dogs to house troops or agents, etc. and ruin the little country.

My positive appraisal of the proposal hinges on the impression I have (which is correct unless I've grossly misread the proposal) that there is nothing forcing that nations delcare themselves either "Nuetral" or "Belligerent", as per these guidelines and rules, in every conflict. There are many times my nation would not want to actively involve itself in a conflict, but would need more flexibility than is included in Nuetral nation status (to help out our allies and engage imndirectly in the conflict through them). There are other situations where I would very much like to shield my nation from becoming unintentionally involved in a conflict and would declare neutrality. So there are three options my nation has: "Belligerent" "Neutral" (as per this proposal's rules) or "Undeclared" (to allow my nation to shape a policy somewhere between the two).

Just a note, a lot of people may misinterpret the word "Belligerent", or fail to see its bearing in the situation. It's fair to use it, but I think there will be those who get the wrong intepretation of the proposal because they have an overly negative connotation attached to the word "BELLIGERENT" and think this is taking some sort of similar negative approach to war in general which is clearly not the objective here. Up to you.

CR, terribly sorry to hijack your thread for a moment, but may I be the first to say:


!!!!!! CRIES OF ASTONISHMENT! !!!!!

PC! Welcome back!

Indeed.

Welcome back, PC.

Well, perhaps restrictions on declaring war would be worthy as a separate war. As this resolution focuses on Neutral nations. Even if they are cannot be linked together as per WA policy, Rights of Neutral Nations will be one step. Restricting war is another, yet Amanda, Mara and me take it seriously.

The ultimate goal is to not only increase world peace, but, for smaller nations, increase confidence in world trade and affairs. There will be about a hundred or more new nations that will be founded in NationStates today.

----

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in any conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES
a) ‘War’ as an armed confrontation between two or more Nations, which often results in death and destruction;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at a said War; (Needs focus)

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to:
- Air Forces
- Naval Forces
- Land and Territorial Forces
- Agents, and others undertaking to acquire the goods and supplies of war.
b) Actively, or covertly act to hinder or assist any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies, or any foreign combatant force/militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict, and;
d) Oversize their forces if they have one, such that when neutrality ends in any way, they possess an unfair advantage over others;

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated, or;
- If a nation wishes to cease status of neutrality at any time.

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid;

3. ALLOWS trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.

4. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through, or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid to civilian populations and to the military wounded.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

(Word Count: 3368)

(Continued)

...Now, there isn't anything against welcoming back the Powerhungry Chipmunks, so welcome back! But let's return to the topic now. Thanks!

We wish the authors lots of succes to bring this to a good proposal.

I see a big problem in the following:
"d) Oversize their forces if they have one, such that when neutrality ends in any way, they possess an unfair advantage over others;"
A nation can already have an oversize force, or the ones at war can crush their forces so the neutrals will all have an oversize force. Or if someone who is neutral on some war can have a big problem with another neutral nation and needs to increase their armed forces.
Anyway I do not think it is wise to put the size of the armed forces in this proposal. If nations are at war and neutrals may have any armed force they like.
If you are in war it is your choice, or bad luck. (It would be wise to stop a war if they feel threatened, but that is their choice.)

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

The Holy Empire of New Illuve has a small issue with Clause 2:
2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid;

Specifically, it is with Clause 2b: "mutual consent of all parties".

Using the word "all" without any limitations can be implied to include not only every World Assembly member, but every non-World Assembly member, NGO, or other organization. They are, after all, parties.

The intent of Clause 2b is clear: A Neutral Nation can be used for specific purposes with the consent of that Neutral Nation as well as the Belligerent Nations.

The Holy Empire proposes to amend Clause 2b to state "...all involved parties". This will limit those necessary to give consent to only those for which consent is pertinent.

The Holy Empire also wishes to point out a shortcoming in the definitions. As written, the proposal mandates that a nation declare itself to be neutral in a conflict in order for it to fall under the protections granted by the proposal. As such, a nation that is either disinterested to the point of not making such a declaration, or simply is not aware of the war, is not a Neutral Nation and could, therefore, by elimination, potentially be construed as a Belligerent Nation. (The reasoning being: if one is not neutral one must be non-neutral, and therefore party to the conflict.)

Therefore, the Holy Empire puts forward this amendment for consideration and discussion:

DEFINES
d)DEEMS a nation that is not a Belligerent Nation nor has declared itself to be a Neutral Nation to be a Neutral Nation unless said nation either declares itself to be one or the other, violates the Mandates in Clause 1 below, or can be reasonably considered to have acted in a way to invalidate the assumed neutrality granted herein.

Finally, the Holy Empire wishes to point out that the phrase "including but not limited to" in Clause 1 is potentially open to abuse. While She realizes that a complete and exhaustive list would be nigh unto impossible to create it should be recognized that deliberate misreadings of the spirit of this phrase can and may be made.

Edit: The Holy Empire also wishes to point out a grammatical error. Her correction has been added in bold:
FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must be protected

I humbly put this forward for your consideration
Ms. Aldis Gunnlæif
Ambassador to the World Assembly

You can count on our vote, excellent idea, this would be a great benefit to the weaker nations! Thank you, hope it makes it to the World Assembly one day!

Signed,
President John Smith

:sniper: I like what Maniway has to say.What about trade with a country?They have the right to trade with a country during a conflict unless they dont use military aid.if they do they should have the right to,but it should'nt be safe because that nuetral country now an ally must follow rules.
1)Will be regiognized as an ally nation in a war
2)Will be assure that they are above the law
3)If they surrender it is not their problem what their fate is
4)They CAN NOT enter the war again(if the war continues)

Revision as of 25/5/08

----

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in any conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES
a) ‘War’ as an armed confrontation between two or more Nations;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at a said War; (Needs focus)

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must be protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to:
- Air Forces
- Naval Forces
- Land and Territorial Forces
- Agents, and others undertaking to acquire the goods and supplies of war.
b) Actively, or covertly act to hinder or assist any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies, or any foreign combatant force/militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action, and;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict.

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated, or;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time.

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid;

3. ALLOWS trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.

4. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through, or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid to civilian populations and to the military wounded.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

A few ideas are indeed under consideration but is open to further discussion for now:

The Holy Empire also wishes to point out a shortcoming in the definitions. As written, the proposal mandates that a nation declare itself to be neutral in a conflict in order for it to fall under the protections granted by the proposal. As such, a nation that is either disinterested to the point of not making such a declaration, or simply is not aware of the war, is not a Neutral Nation and could, therefore, by elimination, potentially be construed as a Belligerent Nation. The reasoning being: if one is not neutral one must be non-neutral, and therefore party to the conflict.

Therefore, the Holy Empire proposes an amendment in the Definitions:

d) DEEMS a nation that is not a Belligerent Nation nor has declared itself to be a Neutral Nation to be a Neutral Nation unless said nation either declares itself to be one or the other, violates the Mandates in Clause 1 below, or can be reasonably considered to have acted in a way to invalidate the assumed neutrality granted herein.

The Holy Empire wishes to point out that the phrase "including but not limited to" in Clause 1 is potentially open to abuse. While She realizes that a complete and exhaustive list would be nigh unto impossible to create it should be recognized that deliberate misreadings of the spirit of this phrase can and may be made.

Ben snavely asks us to consider about trade with a country. He says that they have the right to trade with a country during a conflict unless they don't use military aid. if they do they should have the right to, but it shouldn't be safe because that neutral country, now an ally, must then follow rules:

1) Will be recognized as an ally nation in a war
2) Will be assure that they are above the law
3) If they surrender it is not their problem what their fate is
4) They CAN NOT enter the war again(if the war continues)

Amanda, WA Ambassador considers this to be somewhat crazy because in all trade allowed between warring and neutral nations should be peaceful only.

Good work!

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated, or;
- If a nation wishes to cease status of neutrality at any time.

I think the second subclause should read: "If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time."

The change implies that Mikitivity can end its own status, but that the Most Glorious Hack can not simply decide that Mikitivity is no longer neutral.

Sure thing. Right now I need to get views from other nations about the two proposed amendments because one is quite radical whilst (according to Amanda) the other may conflict with the purpose. Section 1a needs focus because the Holy Empire is concerned that it may be open to abuse by neutral nations.

OOC: if word count is getting to be a problem, consider dropping the phrase bolded, as it doesn't really seem necessary:
DEFINES
a) ‘War’ as an armed confrontation between two or more Nations, which often results in death and destruction;

Good point. I've just weighed my draft again: the result is 3236. If the numbers start to encroach on the barrier then that bold bit would be the first to go.

Oh okay then, maybe it's worth it after all. Check post #54.

The Holy Empire humbly submits the following comments for your consideration:
BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in any conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
Consider changing "any conflict" to "a specific conflict" for it should be possible to be at war with one nation, and yet neutral with regards to another war. Given the intricacies of war, alliances, friendships, et al, this may be a difficult status to acquire, maintain, or assert but in theory it should be more than possible.
DEFINES
a) ‘War’ as an armed confrontation between two or more Nations;
For focus, ease, specificity, and obviousness it may be best to concentrate only upon armed confrontation but it may be interesting to consider other forms that war may take. Cyber-warfare, environmental warfare, financial warfare, and trade warfare are all certainly possible and may be equally destructive as conventional warfare. However, this does add a great deal of complexity to the proposal and it may be best to deal with this in a later resolution.
1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to:
- Air Forces
- Naval Forces
This mandate may cause the violation of traditional and widely accepted Laws of the Sea in that this could forbid allowing a ship or plane in need a safe harbor. It is generally accepted that a mayday call must be answered by those that can provide assistance unless and except doing so would endanger the rescuer. Also: that it is generally not acceptable to refuse harbor to a ship when weather or structural conditions are such that that may be necessary.

Clause 4 may cover this, in the case that those providing the humanitarian aid are NGOs and not agents of the Neutral Nation.

A possible solution:

"1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to:
- Air Forces
- Naval Forces
- Land and Territorial Forces
unless strictly providing humanitarian aid to forces in extreme distress; these forces shall not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war"

Finally, it may be worth considering to change the word "DEFINES" to the phrase "DEFINES for the purpose of this Resolution." As this proposal stands, a legal and binding definition of war, neutral nations, and belligerent nations will be created that may not be sufficient for future needs. The suggested phrase would allow for new uses of these words in other Resolutions, when appropriate as well as exempting this Resolution from unforeseen, unexpected, and undesirable changes that may happen at a later date.

OOC: I'm new to this whole resolution thing, so what I just said might not apply in how the WA does things. In that case, just ignore it. But dang am I enjoying this! Finally something I can put my degree in philosophy to use!

By order of Afbragthligr Ess, the living Avatar, Emperor of the Holy Empire of New Illuve, etc., etc., etc.,

Your servant,
Aldis Gunnlæif
Ambassadrice to the World Assembly

DEFINES
...
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally asserted its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
In my opinion this needs to be a little differently defined. The idea shouldn't be to force everyone to take 1) a strictly protected "Neutral" stance or 2) a "Belligerent" stance in each war. The idea is to offer a WA backed shield against unwanted involvement in armed conflicts your nation wants to steer clear from. My suggestion would be to use terms of "A 'neutral nation' as a nation that has formal asserted neutrality before the WA..."

There is a difference between "formally asserting" in general and "formally asserting before the WA". There are definitely situations in which I would be willing to assume a neutral stance, even asserting it formally (amongst my regionmates, amongst warring nations), yet in such situations I would not want to apply for WA neutral nation protection--and thus force myself to comply with these WA parameters to maintain a neutral status (the “MANDATES that neutral nations…” clause).

There may be some who think that here's something sexy about making fuzzy situations such as wars into digital 1 or 0 affairs (as in "you're either neutral or your belligerent"). I don’t really think that benefits anyone. As I'm reading it right now, there might be that interpretation to this clause—some might see it as meaning that every nation wanting some form of formal neutrality must conform to these guidelines and is forced to have this protection. I just want to make sure the wording allows the necessary openness to allow my nation to treat the various military situations it encounters the best ways possible. In some of the wars we’ll confront, it'll be best to apply for WA protected neutrality. In other wars, that will not be necessary--though I would still like to be able to call my status then "Formal Neutrality", even though I would not wish WA protection.


DEFINES
...
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently at a said War; (Needs focus)

The problem with the wording here is that "at war" is a poetic, imagery-filled way of describing something that needs to be described more matter-of-factly here. "At war" paints "war" as a locale and personifies a nation as an entity that resides in that locale (which is, presumably, ugly or stark) for a certain period of time. Kind of like a summer home.

"At war" is good for politicians and for newspapers, mainly. It's good for them because it has just poetic, imagery-filled properties and can quickly place coerces people's minds as viewing the war in the way the politician is politicking...

There need to be some solid terms here that can be considered. The real considerations here should be military engagement (ie. mobilizations and use of military resources). Look at what exactly you're protecting neutral nations from (in the "MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not..." clause), and every nation that has a risk of doing those things (as an extension of the war) should be considered a Belligerent nation, in my opinion. That should be the guide to your wording.

Not an impossible resolution here, just needs a lot of updating and such, while trying to protect the true purpose of the resolution.

New Illuve has made a considerably great amount of good ideas, although it may be open to conflicting opinions by other nations. The idea of neutral nations interring forces who received aid (peacefully) until after the war will in fact make it difficult for belligerent nations to continue war, and thereby, with ever decreasing military strength, forced to seek a ceasefire or and end to war.


There need to be some solid terms here that can be considered. The real considerations here should be military engagement (ie. mobilizations and use of military resources). Look at what exactly you're protecting neutral nations from (in the "MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not..." clause), and every nation that has a risk of doing those things (as an extension of the war) should be considered a Belligerent nation, in my opinion. That should be the guide to your wording.

Adding 2d should hopefully fill the loopholes, such that... (3410 characters)

----

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in a specific conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES for the purpose of this Resolution:
a) ‘War’ as a military confrontation between two or more Nations;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally declared its neutrality before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently involved in a War;

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must be protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to: Air Forces, Naval Forces or Territorial Forces, but see Section 4;
b) Actively, or covertly act to hinder or assist any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies, or any foreign combatant force/militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action, and;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict.

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated, or;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time.

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid, or;
d) Act in other ways that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. ALLOWS trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.

4. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through, or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid to civilian populations and to the military wounded, but mandates that any forces that received humanitarian aid shall not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

Now you've got the problem that Neutral Nations are (quite rightly) defined relative to specific conflicts, but Belligerent Nations aren't. Given that a nation can be neutral with regard to one war and belligerent with regard to another, this makes the rest of the proposal a bit of a tangled mess. You need to define belligerents as those nations involved in wars that the neutral nation is officially neutral about, though I'm buggered if I can think of the right words.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

A possible rewording could be:

"DEFINES for the purpose of this Resolution:
a) ‘War’ as a military confrontation between two or more Nations;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally declared its neutrality before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently involved in said War"

Sub-clause C would then be referring to the specific war or aggression that is meant in sub-clause B.

I'm not sure you've fully taken on PC's objection: what does it mean to be 'at war'?

You need to specify what actions a nation undertakes in order to be assigned 'Belligerent nation' status. Is it simply issuing a formal declaration of war? If so, nations that don't, but which then supply one side with materiel or troops, wouldn't be counted.

Gobbannium and New Illuve:

That's a considerable good idea. I think said might tighten the definition to appear as 'per war', instead of 'any war'. But as per Quintessence of Dust and PC's considerations, which I am thinking at this moment, 2c may require serious revision unless I state what War really is.

Possible thought as I go to London, England for today (29/05/08):

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
a) A ‘War’ as a military confrontation between two or more Nations;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally declared its neutrality before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently involved in said war or aggression.

New Illuve's idea for 2c would be simply "A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently involved in said war"

QoD:

To supply a nation with military gear in peacetime is definitely not an act of war, but to do so in crisis would be considered as an act of supporting.

My suggestion to revise 2c could be then:

"A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently involved in said war, or a nation that is supporting the military forces of an existing Belligerent Nation."

I should dump 'any war' as this resolution certainly applies as if each war was an entity of its own.

Pretty good idea for a second proposal.

With the changes (including the proposed change to 2c), I feel good about the proposal. Perhaps there could be one final run-down of the text (a new thread? or just a final call for objections?) and it'd be ready for submission--in my opinion. Good luck, at any rate, with the telegram campaign when that time comes.

Yeah I think this is going to be a great proposal, it definitely has my support if it goes to resolution. I'll be keeping updated on it, so make sure you post here if you're going to do a new thread or submit it or something.

You now have an opportunity before July 5th to push in the final analysis reports and comments for consideration, because I have a heavy schedule ahead. I've got college and coursework until July 3rd, then I've got to look after my mates at Bideford Bay Holiday resort.

I've got college and coursework until July 3rd, then I've got to look after my mates at Bideford Bay Holiday resort.
Good luck with the books, and the, er, mates. We'll keep the thread active (unabandoned at least) til your schedule becomes more friendly to the idea of this proposal becoming a resolution. :)

Bears'
Utters
Mopping up
Places


...would be quite disturbing

A new minor issue has been raised by the NS International Democratic Union.

Gerainia, UN Delegate for the IDU, praises the proposal overall, but has hinted at a glitch, in which the only way of a neutral nation to not hinder a belligerent is to comply with a belligerent (Section 1b).

My suggestion is to remove the hindering but add the supporting so that section 1b reads:

The suggestion for Section 1b is:
"Actively, or covertly act to assist or support any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies..."

Hindering means to actually alter the course of war, which in effect means being involved!

Domnonia, IDU Cartographer says that section 3 (which reads "ALLOWS trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.") contradicts with Section 1a and 1b.

It is being suggested in response, to clarify section 3, so that trade between the civilians of Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes is only allowed. I think neutral nations imposing trade sanctions against armies and warring governments have been known to mostly force them into peace. That comes under 1c. However, we can't block trade with innocent civilians who were just unfortunate to be caught up.

The suggestion for Section 3 is:
"ALLOWS commerce between civilians of both Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war."

Therefore Section 1a and 1b is unaffected by Section 3, which now does not allow trade with Belligerent armies as an incentive to promote world peace.

Here is the draft as it stands as we have done quite a reasonable amount of revisions since the last version. I've highlighted, in red, the sections I've just analyzed and suggested: comments are welcome.

Description: UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in a specific conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
a) A ‘War’ as a military confrontation between two or more Nations;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally declared its neutrality before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently involved in said war, or a nation that is supporting the military forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must be protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:

a) Harbor, aid or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, including but not limited to: Air Forces, Naval Forces or Territorial Forces, but see Section 4;
b) Actively, or covertly act to assist or support any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action, and;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict.

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated, or;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time.

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid, or;
d) Act in other ways that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. ALLOWS, in exemption to section 1, commerce between civilians of both Neutral and Belligerent Nations strictly for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.

4. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through, or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid to civilian populations and to the military wounded, but mandates that any forces that received humanitarian aid shall not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

I actually like this resolution. It sets up a protection for WA nations that don't want to become involved in a military conflict, which will protect their populations, culture and economies (whereas non-WA nations have no such protection). The result is that war within WA nations can be more self-contained, and there are less regional and world-wide impacts on innocent peoples and states.

The WSK is following this resolution closely because we believe that the point made above has potential benefits, but that the cost is too great. In theory, this resolution would glorify neutrality but ultimately would limit defensive action. In many ways, the WA creates an element of "collective security" and this would be impossible to maintain with this resolution. A "self-contained" war is not necessarily a just or righteous war with a favourable turnout.

As regional delegate, I am voicing now that the Balkan Peninsula will likely vote against this resolution. This is unless there is a provision or clause that allows for WA members to intervene. The danger here, however, is the emergence of cliques or rifts within the WA itself.

As General Secretary of the KSPP, I feel obliged to say the our state feels that this resolution is unnecessary as this type of foreign policy is best left to individual politicans and leaders. There is no "one size fits all" foreign policy approach regarding something as complex as war.

Western Serb Krajina,

There is indeed no such thing as a "One size fits all" Resolution in a Political Stability or International Security resolution. The important factor of this resolution, however, is to stop any war, old or new, from spreading beyond existing borders. As we know, war can sometimes cost innocent lives solely for the benefit of governments, so war has to be controlled before it gets out of control.

I can't afford to see a war similar to the First and Second World War (both OOC, yet comparable to what Charlotte is thinking), which deeply devastated two continents. Because of Metagaming rules, I can't ban war or make peace compulsory, and it would make this draft more complicated anyway.

Trial and Error is also a factor. As I speak we have two sections currently under re-evaluation. If someone suggests a alteration I come up with a suggestion and if a majority is happy with it then it replaces the incumbent version.

Your population of 102 million and Defence funding standing at 39% (source: NSEconomy) suggests you are well established and ready for war, but some nations don't have the strength as you do, especially with those who either just joined the WA with very low populations, those with little or no defense funding, or nations with no interest in participating in war whatsoever. In fact I've neglected my own defense budget for civil rights.

This resolution promotes their and my right to peace and protection but it has to come with a price. In this case, a few rules. I have to follow that too if this comes into force: under WA rules there is not opt-out.

Even if I have been in existence for some two years with a population of 2.724 billion; I have a serious responsibility as a WA Delegate with other WA members to promote world peace. Try as much as I or any WA member can do, but in practice there is no such thing as a 'perfectly utopian world', where there is no war, crimes, disasters and other maladies we face today.

------

At the moment Political Stability is the suggested category with the strength being Significant.

Gerainia, UN Delegate for the IDU, praises the proposal overall, but has hinted at a glitch, in which the only way of a neutral nation to not hinder a belligerent is to comply with a belligerent (Section 1b).

My suggestion is to remove the hindering but add the supporting so that section 1b reads:

The suggestion for Section 1b is:
"Actively, or covertly act to assist or support any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies..."
This does mean that 1b is now effectively just 1a in drag, whereas before it was the only thing mentioning hampering in any way. It's probably OK to make the change, since hindering one Belligerent probably counts as aiding another. It's probably even better to merge the clauses, since they now say more or less the same thing.

Whichever, the comma after "Actively" is definitely wrong, and the word "active" is a hostage to fortune. You've got "Belligerent Nation" pinned down pretty well, don't qualify it unnecessarily.

I've got one more problem with this bit that I hadn't noticed earlier. Both 1a and 1b refer to "foreign combatant force/militia" without any other qualifier. As it's written, a neutral nation can't support any military that isn't its own, even if that military is completely uninvolved in the war that we're talking about.

Domnonia, IDU Cartographer says that section 3 (which reads "ALLOWS trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.") contradicts with Section 1a and 1b.

It is being suggested in response, to clarify section 3, so that trade between the civilians of Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes is only allowed. I think neutral nations imposing trade sanctions against armies and warring governments have been known to mostly force them into peace. That comes under 1c. However, we can't block trade with innocent civilians who were just unfortunate to be caught up.
Sorry, no, if that conflicted with 1a and 1b before then rewording it that way isn't going to help. Just say explicitly that it's an exemption to 1 and be done with it.

To be honest, I don't see why you think the exemption should exist, though. Trading between nations, whether done by governments or (more usually) between businesses or individuals, definitely helps the nation. Can you really claim to be neutral and still let that happen?

Gobbannaen WA Mission: This does mean that 1b is now effectively just 1a in drag, whereas before it was the only thing mentioning hampering in any way. It's probably OK to make the change, since hindering one Belligerent probably counts as aiding another. It's probably even better to merge the clauses, since they now say more or less the same thing.

Whichever, the comma after "Actively" is definitely wrong, and the word "active" is a hostage to fortune. You've got "Belligerent Nation" pinned down pretty well, don't qualify it unnecessarily.

I've got one more problem with this bit that I hadn't noticed earlier. Both 1a and 1b refer to "foreign combatant force/militia" without any other qualifier. As it's written, a neutral nation can't support any military that isn't its own, even if that military is completely uninvolved in the war that we're talking about.


I've removed the comma and the extra 'active', ending the unnecessarily enhancement now that "Belligerent Nation" is pinned down:

a) Harbor, aid or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, including but not limited to: Air Forces, Naval Forces or Territorial Forces, but see Section 4;

I also recognise the flaw in Section 1b where Neutral Nations cannot support any force, neutral or belligerent as it stands, so both sections now have to cover just the belligerent nation(s) concerned:

b) Actively, or covertly act to assist or support any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action, and...

A suggestion has come through by Amanda to probably tighten the definition of a belligerent's military force and its allies.

From the Domini Globe and Post:
The Domini Foreign Ministry, having considered the question of the neutrality of states and agreeing that it is a right of any nation that is not at war in a specific conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, announced Friday Domnonia's unequivocal support for the passage of this resolution.

The Resolution is being proposed by the nation of Charlotte Ryberg, with much draft assistance from IDU member Mikitivity, former IDU member Quintessence of Dust and others, as the Neutrality of Nations, which would restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order. Domnonia believes that the resolutions intent is to significantly add to political stability.

In supporting the Resolution, Foreign Affairs Minister Alice Lidell says that, "affirming that the sovereign right of every State to determine independently its foreign policy in accordance with the norms and principles of international law is of utmost importance not only to those governments involved, but more importantly, to the legitimacy of the citizenry."

"The desire of Parliament is to play an active and positive role in developing peaceful, friendly and mutually beneficial relations with the countries of the region and other states of the world, expressing the hope that the protected status of neutrality will contribute to the strengthening of peace and security internationally," said Lidell.

The drafting nations agree that the proposal still has a few minor details to work out, but on the whole is able to do what it sets out within it's preamble. Two recent edits of the text greatly strengthen the proposal against those that would use slippery logic to subvert the intent of the proposal.

Lidell also calls upon Members of the International Democratic Union and all World Assembly participants to respect and support this resolution.

Excellent proposal that would be backed by Cocodian if it came up to a vote.

As I've said earlier in the thread, I will never support this measure. I will however say that the current version looks like it's close to as perfect(for your purposes anyhow) as it can get. I will oppose this down the line, but it's not bad legislation, it just doesn't agree with my ideology.

That said there's no need to bring up the cluster bomb proposal in this thread. It's not applicable to the topic at hand.

I update post #73 now. I feel there's still room for ironing section 3, because I have multiple ideas for adjustment:

Existing: allow peaceful trade between civilians, as long as items are not war booty; that is, ALLOWS, in exemption to section 1, commerce between civilians of both Neutral and Belligerent Nations strictly for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.

Idea 1: allow peaceful trade between civilians, at low level, as long as items are not war booty, at the expense of peaceful industry;
Idea 2: allow peaceful trade between individuals and businesses, at low level, as long as items are not war booty;
Idea 3: allow peaceful trade between civilians, at low level, as long as items are not war booty;
Idea 4: Ban all trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations, but run the risk of civilian rebellion.

I'm not sure that there is any need, nor reason, to mandate at what level trade can continue. Ruling out war related trade should be enough; arms, etc. This was done successfully with the 'peaceful purposes' statement. If a neutral state wishes to employ economic and trade sanctions it should do so at it's own discretion.

I'm still wondering what possible justification there is for the answer not being "Idea 4". Seriously.

Forget the multiple ideas bit because the existing one turns out to be better.

One advisor told me today that Idea 4 could have been quite silly: it would have enhanced the ability to retain neutrality, but trade would simply stop, at the expense of the economy, so therefore that's pretty useless. The advisor also complains that Idea 1-3 dictates levels. Therefore:

ALLOWS, in exemption to section 1, commerce between civilians of both Neutral and Belligerent Nations strictly for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.


... looks good enough so far because it rules out war-related trade.

One advisor told me today that Idea 4 could have been quite silly: it would have enhanced the ability to retain neutrality, but trade would simply stop, at the expense of the economy, so therefore that's pretty useless.

So instead you'd prefer to allow a neutral to feed a belligerent's war economy by goods, money or literal food? That doesn't sound very neutral to me.

I'm not going to ideas 1-4 because it's superseded. Err, what about this?

ALLOWS, commerce between civilians of both Neutral and Belligerent Nations strictly for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through or for war.

So this hopefully no longer allows a neutral nation to support Belligerent Nations, because civilians cannot use items for war purposes, as well as being barred from trading goods gained through war.

The same question still applies. Economies are interrelated things after all; if a neutral nation sells food (say) to a belligerent nation, that's fewer people who have to work on the farms to feed the nation, and more people who are available to the army or the munitions factories or whatever.

The same question still applies. Economies are interrelated things after all; if a neutral nation sells food (say) to a belligerent nation, that's fewer people who have to work on the farms to feed the nation, and more people who are available to the army or the munitions factories or whatever.

...then at that point, and with full knowledge of the effect, the neutral party would cease being a neutral nation. Unless, of course, they sell to both sides of the conflict with equal favor.

I don't see why neutral parties should be hamstrung by the fact one or more of their neighbors has gone to war. To restrict them from selling grain or other supplies of a non-military nature would only harm the people in the neutral nation.

N.T.

I don't see why neutral parties should be hamstrung by the fact one or more of their neighbors has gone to war. To restrict them from selling grain or other supplies of a non-military nature would only harm the people in the neutral nation.

N.T.

You're not hamstringing them by the fact of a neighbor going to war, they're hamstrung by the fact that they'd like to be protected from other nations at war. That's what this amounts to, protection from having to participate in a war. That doesn't mean that without that protection they'll inevitably be drawn into the war, or be declared upon, but it gives them the chance to be. Like it should be.

They'll have to give up some trade if they want to remain "protected" from their neighbors regardless. I think it should be all trade.

The whole concept bugs me, still, because given 3 nations of equal power, 2 go to war, one declares neutrality, then attacks it's neighbors once they're weak from fighting each other(or once one is victorious). The power is all in the hands of the "neutral" nation, no matter it's intentions.

I do offer a bit of an addition, define clearly that the "neutral" protections end when the war in which it was declared is over. As I read it, a nation declaring itself neutral is forever protected from the nation that went to war.

As a responsible WA delegate, I feel it is imprtant to incorporate some form of 'democracy' in this discussion. So I am going to let you reach a consensus, with me, on the fate of section 3.

Just a thought, but perhaps:

ALLOWS, in exemption to section 1, commerce between civilians of both Neutral and Belligerent Nations strictly for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war. Neutral nations are not permitted to favour trading partners between belligerent, and must trade on free market terms

First of all, I'm not seeing how section 3 is, as it states, in any way making an exemption to section 1. Section 1 deals with military actions a neutral nation cannot take, and does not mention trade. Section 3 is about the trade a neutral nation can engage in. Perhaps, if it were "corresponding to" or "as corollary to" section 1 it would make sense. But the way it's written now I keep looking back to section 1 looking for trade restrictions that section 3 is amending or exempting and can't find anything.

As far as trade, the price neutral nations should pay in trade for applying for WA neutrality protection is the sacrificing of trade between governments (or any private corporations that function as extensions of the government) of military resources. Domestic trade is a separate affair and it seems a little out of place to limit either governments or civilians in conducting domestic trade with belligerent nations. Military items perhaps are reasonable to be limited or suspended, but domestic trade restrictions are non sequitur.

Also, I understand and support the motivation behind restricting neutral nations from trading for goods obtained directly through the war. For one if this were allowed, we might find a “neutral nation” making a trade conspiracy with "belligerent nation 1" to gain economic goods (such as, perhaps, national historical artifacts, artistic treasures, etc.) from the other "belligerent nation 2". “Belligerent nation 2” has no recourse to recover his goods lost except ending the conflict with "Belligerent nation 1" (to dissolve the neutrality of the “neutral nation”), then attacking the “neutral nation”.

It's unrealistic to think that all trading must be or will be even to all belligerent nations involved, so I don't support that sort of limitation. But this particular type of trade conspiracy is especially pernicious and it's necessary to prohibit it. To put it another way. A neutral nation gives up the right to good directly won in a conflict when it asks for protection from that conflict. This seems fair, and reasonable.

Perhaps:

"3. PROHIBITS neutral nations from directly or indirectly engaging in trade, or exchanges of any kind, of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with belligerent nations; ADDITIONALLY PROHIBITS neutral nations from acquiring goods, domestic or military, obtained by belligerent nations through military operations in the war at question;"

This would have no reason to be a stand alone, though, and would make more sense as an addition to section 1.

You're not hamstringing them by the fact of a neighbor going to war, they're hamstrung by the fact that they'd like to be protected from other nations at war. That's what this amounts to, protection from having to participate in a war. That doesn't mean that without that protection they'll inevitably be drawn into the war, or be declared upon, but it gives them the chance to be. Like it should be.

They'll have to give up some trade if they want to remain "protected" from their neighbors regardless. I think it should be all trade.

I see what you're saying- punish them for wanting to have their cake and eat it too, while the jolly good soldiers boys from Bigtopia get rat stew and trenchwater.

The whole concept bugs me, still, because given 3 nations of equal power, 2 go to war, one declares neutrality, then attacks it's neighbors once they're weak from fighting each other(or once one is victorious). The power is all in the hands of the "neutral" nation, no matter it's intentions.

I do offer a bit of an addition, define clearly that the "neutral" protections end when the war in which it was declared is over. As I read it, a nation declaring itself neutral is forever protected from the nation that went to war.

I like this concept. Simply declaring neutrality is no guarantee of safety in war- being able to point to a document and say "look! look! no war! We're neutral!" isn't going to stop a determined enemy from raining sweet, firey doom down upon your people.

First of all, I'm not seeing how section 3 is, as it states, in any way making an exemption to section 1. Section 1 deals with military actions a neutral nation cannot take, and does not mention trade. Section 3 is about the trade a neutral nation can engage in. Perhaps, if it were "corresponding to" or "as corollary to" section 1 it would make sense. But the way it's written now I keep looking back to section 1 looking for trade restrictions that section 3 is amending or exempting and can't find anything.

As far as trade, the price neutral nations should pay in trade for applying for WA neutrality protection is the sacrificing of trade between governments (or any private corporations that function as extensions of the government) of military resources. Domestic trade is a separate affair and it seems a little out of place to limit either governments or civilians in conducting domestic trade with belligerent nations. Military items perhaps are reasonable to be limited or suspended, but domestic trade restrictions are non sequitur.

What about the point made that supplying grain or other non-military items will allow a nation to beat some plowshares into swords and send Johnny Cropduster to the front? Certainly restrictions on raw metals, fertilizer, and materiel that isn't on it's face military-oriented could easily be circumvented.

Also, I understand and support the motivation behind restricting neutral nations from trading for goods obtained directly through the war. For one if this were allowed, we might find a “neutral nation” making a trade conspiracy with "belligerent nation 1" to gain economic goods (such as, perhaps, national historical artifacts, artistic treasures, etc.) from the other "belligerent nation 2". “Belligerent nation 2” has no recourse to recover his goods lost except ending the conflict with "Belligerent nation 1" (to dissolve the neutrality of the “neutral nation”), then attacking the “neutral nation”.

You're suggesting Nation B is selling captured loot from and valuables Nation C to Neutral A? Wouldn't Clause 3 disallow this, as Neutral A is now complicit in the conflict? The operative word in your example is "conspiracy," of course.

It's unrealistic to think that all trading must be or will be even to all belligerent nations involved, so I don't support that sort of limitation. But this particular type of trade conspiracy is especially pernicious and it's necessary to prohibit it. To put it another way. A neutral nation gives up the right to good directly won in a conflict when it asks for protection from that conflict. This seems fair, and reasonable.

Perhaps:

"3. PROHIBITS neutral nations from directly or indirectly engaging in trade, or exchanges of any kind, of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with belligerent nations; ADDITIONALLY PROHIBITS neutral nations from acquiring goods, domestic or military, obtained by belligerent nations through military operations in the war at question;"

This would have no reason to be a stand alone, though, and would make more sense as an addition to section 1.

I believe the clause already prohibits this implicitly, but I'm not opposed to having it written more clearly. Your wording is much better.

N.T.

What about the point made that supplying grain or other non-military items will allow a nation to beat some plowshares into swords and send Johnny Cropduster to the front? Certainly restrictions on raw metals, fertilizer, and materiel that isn't on it's face military-oriented could easily be circumvented.
What if their economy depends on trade with that neighbour? Indeed, what if their territories are actually enclosed by that neighbour's lands? Must they be forced into becoming a belligerent nation for the sake of their economic survival?

OOC: RL example... San Marino and the Vatican City are both completely surrounded by Italian territory. Neither of those states could survive without trading with Italy. During WWII they both managed to remain out of the war, apparently without any of the nations that were fighting against Italy (whether before or after it changed sides) trying to make their cessation of trade with Italy a condition for recognition of their neutrality...

What if their economy depends on trade with that neighbour? Indeed, what if their territories are actually enclosed by that neighbour's lands? Must they be forced into becoming a belligerent nation for the sake of their economic survival?

OOC: RL example... San Marino and the Vatican City are both completely surrounded by Italian territory. Neither of those states could survive without trading with Italy. During WWII they both managed to remain out of the war, apparently without any of the nations that were fighting against Italy (whether before or after it changed sides) trying to make their cessation of trade with Italy a condition for recognition of their neutrality...

They wouldn't be "protected" by this resolution, but they could still remain neutral.

OOC: There was nothing "protecting" those states during WWII for example. This resolution is only outlining protections. One can stay neutral outside it's framework as well.

I do offer a bit of an addition, define clearly that the "neutral" protections end when the war in which it was declared is over. As I read it, a nation declaring itself neutral is forever protected from the nation that went to war.
I've got to be cautious about this: A war in which neutrality is sanctioned on can appear to end completely one day, then break out again in just 48 hours, jeopardizing the safety of a neutral nation and allowing a belligerent nation to take advantage of the weakness. As part of protection the WA has to be satisfied that when the said war ends, it really ends for a reasonable amount of time. My idea is:
CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time, or;
- If the war which neutrality is sanctioned on ceases to exist and the WA is satisfied that a similar conflict will not break out for a sensible period of time.
This leaves section 3 still on the table. I take into consideration, Powerhungry Chipmunks' idea, but the passage is starting to be quite similar to section 1. However, this trade restriction applies to Both Parties, neutral or belligerent, so my idea is:
3. MANDATES, for the duration of the war in question:
a) That both Neutral and Belligerent Nations may not, directly or indirectly engage in trade, or exchanges of any kind, of military supplies, such as: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel, and;
b) That Neutral Nations may not acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by belligerent nations through military operations.
Yes, trade is indeed some of the most difficult parts of the resolution, but I think I have to strike a balance on restrictions against both parties. Already I note that Belligerent Nations also have to observe consequences for going to war in the first place: among the consequences is that some nations against the said war will not want to trade with them until they pull out.

The violation section should actually move down since Section 3 has been modified to apply to both Neutral and Belligerent nations.

Let's look at the layout now there has been a few major revisions:

UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in a specific conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
a) A ‘War’ as a military confrontation between two or more Nations;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally declared its neutrality before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently involved in said war, or a nation that is supporting the military forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must be protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbour, aid or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, including but not limited to: Air Forces, Naval Forces or Territorial Forces, but see Section 4;
b) Actively, or covertly act to assist or support any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict;

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid, or;
d) Act in other ways that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. MANDATES that all involved nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:
a) Directly or indirectly engage in trade, or exchanges of any kind, of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with belligerent nations, and;
b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by belligerent nations through military operations.

4. CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of §1 or §3 is knowingly and deliberately violated;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time, or;
- If the war which neutrality is sanctioned on ceases to exist and the WA is satisfied that a similar conflict will not break out for a sensible period of time.

5. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through, or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid to civilian populations and to the military wounded, but mandates that any forces that received humanitarian aid shall not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

The New section four now holds the terms in relation to the termination of neutrality. The violation condition covers both section 1 and 3.

Any time you trade with the enemy. you are the enemy.

Any time you trade with the enemy. you are the enemy.
You speak the obvious. Fortunately, Article 1 of this proposal mandates that neutral nations may not "trade with the enemy".

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

You speak the obvious. Fortunately, Article 1 of this proposal mandates that neutral nations may not "trade with the enemy".

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

Absolutely: but this is also covered under section 3, where all involved nations cannot trade, or exchanges of any type of military supplies: anything that may aid a war, or anything that had been seized as 'war booty' by a belligerent nation. Section 1 generally bars neutral nations from assisting a belligerent nation, or influence the outcome of a war that they've declared themselves neutral from.

Having believed this is the most difficult proposal the government has made to date, it's time to finalise the categories soon.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

The commas in this clause seem to have got out of hand. Also, at whose sole discretion? Which measures above, since none of those clauses seem remotely applicable? I think there's been some edit-itis here.

3. MANDATES that all involved nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:
a) Directly or indirectly engage in trade, or exchanges of any kind, of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with belligerent nations, and;
b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by belligerent nations through military operations.

Some trade may still continue between belligerents in a low level conflict. It seems to be outside the scope of this resolution to ban trade between nations at war.

Some trade may still continue between belligerents in a low level conflict. It seems to be outside the scope of this resolution to ban trade between nations at war.

I've been thinking closely about section 3 because it may appear to be misinterpreted. The limitation of trade is to prevent neutral nations from secretly supporting a war through trade of military supplies, and to prevent belligerents from smuggling war booty and troops into neutral nations, perhaps to mount a surprise attack later.

Additionally, personnel may have been covered in Section 1 and 2, where 1a prevents neutral nations from deploying troops to assist a belligerent, while 2a and 2c bars belligerents from sending troops to neutral nations.

The first option is to get rid of section 3 altogether;

The second option is to modify the restriction to a 'neutral to belligerent' relationship, instead of 'all to all', like this:

3. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:
a) Directly or indirectly engage in trade or exchanges, of any kind of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with Belligerent Nations, and;
b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by Belligerent Nations through military operations.

On balance I think banning trade between nations at war is beyond boundaries and therefore consider Option 2.

The commas in this clause seem to have got out of hand. Also, at whose sole discretion? Which measures above, since none of those clauses seem remotely applicable? I think there's been some edit-itis here.

As for this clause, it may be possible to clarify to the purpose of the clause is that 'Neutral nations may use parts or all of this resolution if they wish, to protect themselves from non-WA nations at war'. The challenge is that the WA has no jurisdiction over non members otherwise it becomes a meta-gaming change.

EMPHASIZES that a Neutral Nation may, at their discretion, adapt any of the measures above where appropriate to protect themselves from Belligerent Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly, involving but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, or economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

Some trade may still continue between belligerents in a low level conflict. It seems to be outside the scope of this resolution to ban trade between nations at war.
OOC: During WWI the British government actually licenced a few British firms to trade, through the [neutral] Netherlands, with German firms! Apparently the German chemical industry was the only one then capable of supplying adequate quantities of certain dyes that were needed for the British military uniforms...

Yes, that is between two warring nations: at the time aeroplanes were at its infancy. I may want to consider, if you agree, a minor modification to section 2c, changing the word from traverse to enter. I have to assume that even if there are aeroplanes and such sophisticated transportation methods here in Charlotte Ryberg, it may not be the same elsewhere.

Either:

2c) MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not enter a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Neutral Nations, except humanitarian aid, or;

or:

2c) MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not enter a Neutral Nation to resource supplies for war, including but not limited to: food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Neutral Nations, except humanitarian aid, or;

What do you think?

Yes, that is between two warring nations:
Quite so: and if two warring nations could agree to continue with a small amount of trade between themselves, whether or not this passed through a nation that was recognised by them as neutral, perhaps they might also be willing -- in some cases -- to agree that a country could still be recognised as neutral while trading with one or both sides? (Consider, for example, a hypothetical situation in which nations on both sides needed to obtain certain medical supplies from a single source... or one where the hostilities had greatly hindered food production in nations on both sides, and the only nations with surplus food for sale made this recognition of neutrality a condition for selling it to the belligerents...) I would suggest making the ban apply "unless all of the belligerent nations in that conflict agree to waive this requirement".

Something along the lines of:

2c) MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not enter a Neutral Nation to resource supplies for military operations, such as weapons, personnel, armaments or agents of Neutral Nations, or;

I don't aim to ban trade for civilian, medical or everyday purposes, just trade that helps nations kill each other. Maybe taking 'food' out may help a bit, since everyone needs to eat, whether it's peacetime or not.

I have a problem with the idea that there is any trade that doesn't help nations kill each other, at least indirectly. Food feeds armies, especially when a fair few of your former farmers have taken up arms...

Food feeds armies, especially when a fair few of your former farmers have taken up arms...It also feeds children. Won't you please think of the children?

Sorry... couldn't resist...

It also feeds children. Won't you please think of the children?

Sorry... couldn't resist...

*Somewhere far, far away, a Captain of a ship considers his options for trying to persuade nearby belligerent ships not to utterly destroy his vessel and slay everyone on it.*

Hmm, "We have nothing of value to the war effort, destroying us is a waste of armament!" No...

"You'd be in violation of World Assembly Resolution #14!" No...

"We have women and children on board, I repeat, we have children on board!" Yes! That'll work!

Sorry, also couldn't resist.
***

On a serious note, a nation that needs to starve the enemy to have a chance of winning is likely to lose anyhow, even if it isn't restricted from attacking humanitarian food shipments. There are also considerable penalties associated with using such tactics, not least of which can be a certain level of ostracization. This resolution would not be taking away a particularly effective tool of war, with the above perspective in mind.

The Belligerent ships can't destroy his vessel and slay everyone on it if it belongs to a neutral nation. That violates section 2 and I've extended the exploitation ban in 2b to cover all war-related activity in a neutral nation without explicit and mutual consensus from all parties.

The current status as of 11/07/08. Amanda and Lulu have been waiting patiently for this proposal to be put to approval...

UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in a specific conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
a) A ‘War’ as a military confrontation between two or more Nations;
b) A ‘Neutral Nation’ as a nation that has formally declared its neutrality before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ‘Belligerent Nation’ as a nation that is currently involved in said war, or a nation that is supporting the military forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must be protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbour, aid or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, including but not limited to: Air Forces, Naval Forces or Territorial Forces, but see Section 4;
b) Actively, or covertly act to assist or support any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict;

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded, storage of dead personnel or other war-related activity without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Enter a Neutral Nation to resource supplies for military operations, such as weapons, personnel, armaments or agents of Neutral Nations, or;
d) Act in other ways that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:
a) Directly or indirectly engage in trade or exchanges, of any kind of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with Belligerent Nations, and;
b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by Belligerent Nations through military operations.

4. CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of §1 or §3 is knowingly and deliberately violated;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time, or;
- If the war which neutrality is sanctioned on ceases to exist and the WA is satisfied that a similar conflict will not break out for a sensible period of time.

5. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through, or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid to civilian populations and to the military wounded, but mandates that any forces that received humanitarian aid shall not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that a Neutral Nation may, at their discretion, adapt any of the measures above where appropriate to protect themselves from Belligerent Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly, involving but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, or economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

If everyone is happy about the current state I am prepared to upload it.

This proposal looks promisingly and we are ready to support it. Legal provisions about neutrality seem to be very useful in our times.

Jamie Sal Markow, President
His Eminence Armand Jean de Richelieu, Secretary of foreign Affairs

I'm as happy as I'm going to get, given we fundamentally disagree about (3). Go for it.

As for the proposed category: International Security (A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.) and the strength being 'Mild', is this acceptable for you?

Not sure I see the justification for that...

As for the proposed category: International Security (A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.) and the strength being 'Mild', is this acceptable for you?

I think it is not mild but strong, because it takes away the possibility to start a war on neutral nations. Also it regulates wars.
But I do not see that the military and police budgets will be boosted by this proposal once it becomes an approved WA resolution.

Greetings,
Cocoamok

I'd say (maybe) 'Global Disarmament', Mild, because it slightly reduces the spread of conflicts...

I am going to consider the category 'Global Disarmament', because it will restrict belligerents from starting wars on neutral nations without absolute approval from the WA.

The strength I will choose is 'Strong' because war will become regulated by this resolution, considering the fact that when this resolution is implemented, this will be one of the resolutions that will promote world peace, and one way to do this is to reduce military funding.

Everyone satisfied for me to proceed if I go with this current choice?

The Dominion of Icy Cold Of Death Touch holds contempt for anyone trying to stand for neutrality it can be used as a "cheeky defense". My nation will never support and the members of my region would not let me approve of it anyway.

It is just being discovered that this proposal has an astonishing 3736 characters, so any ideas in terms of trimming?

One way I am thinking, in order to shorten the proposal, is to merge two parts:BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in a specific conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.and:FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must be protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation; could merge to become:BELIEVES that:
- It is a right of any Member Nation that is not involved in a said war to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify their neutrality.
116 characters will then be spared.

This revision may actually be below the 3,460 character limit.

Neutrality of Nations
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending (and improve world peace).

Category: Global Disarmament, Strength: Strong, Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

ACKNOWLEDGING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

The World Assembly,

BELIEVES that:
- It is a right of any Member Nation that is uninvolved in a said war to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
- War as a armed conflict between two or more Nations;
- A Neutral Nation as a nation that has formally declared itself neutral before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or hostility existing between two or more other nations, and;
- A Belligerent Nation as a nation that is currently involved in said war or a nation that is supporting the armed forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbour, aid or provide for armed forces of any Belligerent Nation or its military allies, including but not limited to: Air, Naval or Territorial Forces (but see §4);
b) Actively or covertly act to assist or support any armed forces or agents of an active Belligerent Nation or its military allies, through force or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of the said war regardless of the level of secrecy, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict;

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded, storage of dead personnel or other war-related activity without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Enter a Neutral Nation to resource supplies for military operations, such as weapons, personnel, armaments or agents, or;
d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:
a) Directly or indirectly engage in trade or exchanges, of any kind of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with Belligerent Nations, and;
b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by Belligerent Nations through military operations.

4. CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of §1 or §3 is knowingly and deliberately violated;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time, or;
- If the war which neutrality is sanctioned on ceases to exist and the WA is satisfied that a similar conflict will not break out for a sensible period of time.

5. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Relief Aid to civilian populations and the military wounded, but recommends that casualties receiving humanitarian aid should not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that a Neutral Nation may at their discretion, adapt any of the measures above where appropriate to protect themselves from Belligerent Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly, involving but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, or economic/trade sanctions.

APPLAUDS Nations that avoid armed conflicts for the purpose of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

"The only army I have is the ceremonial guards. It is no match for an invader."

Well, my draft has been submitted as a proposal as I see it is compatible with WA policies. I am hopeful for a good response.

Good proposal there.

70 approvals so far. A great start although we could get more if we can listen to the opinions of more nations who have telegrammed me. As always I know it was going to be a hard one but I know it is possible with the right words and parameters.

- A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality.
This is very awkwardly worded. Who is "they" supposed to refer to, the neutral nation or the belligerent?

It would seem to mean:

A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they (the belligerent nations) observe obligations to justify its (the neutral nation's) neutrality.


Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

That is one thing we can correct for our second attempt. My proposed revision (1) would be 'A Neutral Nation must observe obligations to justify its neutrality in return for protection from Belligerent Nations.' If many agree with this, it will replace the second part of the BELIEVES clause.

Xanthal, Necronensis and Lord Tothe is concerned in relation to the World Assembly sanctioning an attack upon a neutral nation in the interest of peace. My suggestion (2) is that section 2a be reduced to 'MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war', because it lacks any criteria on such sanction. Such determination of the criteria may result in complications that many may fear of going through. As mentioned in section 4, neutrality has a sunset clause in which it ends if it is violated, ended on request of if the said war ends for a sensible period of time.

Xanthal is concerned that the entire proposal seems to suggest a level of military authority which the WA does not actually possess, thus fatally compromising its effectiveness in the event of its passage. Let me clarify that the WA does not have an army; but it can, with this resolution, force belligerents to steer away from neutrals, through powerful mandates. I may be thinking about loosening the strength of this proposal (3)

Morrenstien is concerned that it suggests that all WA memeber nations cut our military spending down for the betterment of nations that choose to act neutral, on grounds that it would only effect those nations within the WA, so a nation on the "outside" with a strong military presence could attack a nation and it would have no way to defend it. My suggestion (4) may be to adjust the category that will not affect military spending. Options include 'Political Stability' at a price of political freedoms, or 'International Security' resulting in higher police/military budgets. Should I choose one of the two, it might have to be of mild strength.

I have numbered each suggestions here for quick reference.

Morrenstien is concerned that it suggests that all WA memeber nations cut our military spending down for the betterment of nations that choose to act neutral, on grounds that it would only effect those nations within the WA, so a nation on the "outside" with a strong military presence could attack a nation and it would have no way to defend it. My suggestion (4) may be to adjust the category that will not affect military spending. Options include 'Political Stability' at a price of political freedoms, or 'International Security' resulting in higher police/military budgets. Should I choose one of the two, it might have to be of mild strength.

The 'Political Stability' category is supposed to increase the power of national governments over their subjects, not to reduce those governments' own freedom of action, so it seems inappropriate for this proposal. I'd suggest simply keeping this as 'Global Disarmament' but reducing its strength and thus reducing its effect on military spending.

On suggestion 4:

My suggestion on your advice is the strength of mild. What do you think?

On suggestion 4:

My suggestion on your advice is the strength of mild. What do you think?
That seems reasonable to me.

Updated post #1 to take into account of the adjusted strength. Thank you.

I have one conern; should, for example, a pilot of a belligerent crash in neutral territory due to navigation error or other mistake, or the survivors of a shipwreck land on the shores of neutral nation, this resolution prevents you from interning them (as that would count as harbouring, I would imagine, and thus be in violation of 1. a)) and could not be returned to the belligerent nation, as that would be aiding a belligerent...

Section 1a may have been outdated as the Humanitarian aid section moved to part 5.

Suggestion of revising 1a to: MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not Harbour, aid or provide for armed forces of any Belligerent Nation or its military allies, including but not limited to: Air, Naval or Territorial Forces (but see §5). This will link section 1 to section 5 in terms of exceptions.

I'm not sure that really cuts it; I'd rather see a clause permitting neutral nations to hold belligerent nations' military personell and equipment that has illegally entered their borders until the cessation of hostilities

Maybe removing 'Harbour' may help if it is okay.

One the last count of the first attempt, it got 104 approvals: Wierd Anarchists, Theocracyes, R539, Jimmy Hart, Chazzistan, Gibraltenstein, Jey, Candelaria And Marquez, Cordova I, Glenlogan, MightyCyberton, Endolantron, Eastshore, Imperium De Mundi, Kazzan, Kadoshim, Filth-y Hippies, Moon god, Armi Lan, Misplaced States, The GMK, The IKPK Officer, Sampoclezia, Lucanian Shires, The genii nation, A Place to be Somebody, Estroban, Varavano, Ventei, Wulfenlands, Klianjyi, Vexic, Homieville, Gwenstefani, Oodges, Punggol, Fortana, Txiniamagna, Worldia555, Omarmalcolm, The Goddess Ayanami, Teply, Jinal, Yuehan land, Gallantaria, Gilliganstan, Tatarica, Redbekkistan, Bats outta Mordor, Graalium, Ritha Major, Portugal and the Seas, Eiga-Baka, Roma SPQR Latium, Aeron Land, Marsian Aliens, Phorensya, Necronensis, Kleinekatzen, Aztec National League, Penguinion, Todorov, Jokerisms, Basoline, Minqi, Monkeys with TommyGuns, Frejftw, Xatheland, Tilgate, Benedictinople, Metalflake, The Armed Brethren, Gruk Xyre, Rougania, Saldraan, Busy Minds, 010101A, Senorak Valley, Zirp, Ordinary Radicals, Chicheleg, Scififanaticz, The god near, Ashtii, Jeweled Swords, Mibive, Santa clauses8, Woollymice, Wencee, The Anarchistic, Khullar, Lacmhacarh, Zernas, Zakandia, Oriskany Falls, The Artic Republics, Disjenca, Insterburg, Minyos, Naturale, Meydenbauer, Spegetti West, Praeland and Ascelonia.

Add me and it's... 105 :eek: if only more people frequent the forum we'd have more opinions and better coverage. :headbang:

Not the best solution, but considering the proximity to the word limit, it may have to do...

Done and repaired link to section 5 (see post #1). The character limit is 3460, not 3500. The second attempt is currently at 3355: the first bang on 3460....

Disaster! The first attempt reached quorum! The second one was much better!
No, keep the old revision for now: let everyone at the WA have their say

Disaster! The first attempt reached quorum! The second one was much better!

Your call. I can take the Sure Thing down, and you can resubmit the Better Version. Still got a few hours.

If you can, I can integrate the second version into the existing proposal if you're happy, which goes like this: And modify the strength to mild.
ACKNOWLEDGING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

The World Assembly,

BELIEVES that:
- It is a right of any Member Nation that is uninvolved in a said war to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- A Neutral Nation must observe obligations to justify its neutrality in return for protection from Belligerent Nations.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
- War as a armed conflict between two or more Nations;
- A Neutral Nation as a nation that has formally declared itself neutral before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or hostility existing between two or more other nations, and;
- A Belligerent Nation as a nation that is currently involved in said war or a nation that is supporting the armed forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Aid or provide for armed forces of any Belligerent Nation or its military allies, including but not limited to: Air, Naval or Territorial Forces (but see §5);
b) Actively or covertly act to assist or support any armed forces or agents of an active Belligerent Nation or its military allies, through force or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of the said war regardless of the level of secrecy, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict;

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war;
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded, storage of dead personnel or other war-related activity without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Enter a Neutral Nation to resource supplies for military operations, such as weapons, personnel, armaments or agents, or;
d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:
a) Directly or indirectly engage in trade or exchanges, of any kind of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with Belligerent Nations, and;
b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by Belligerent Nations through military operations.

4. CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of §1 or §3 is knowingly and deliberately violated;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time, or;
- If the war which neutrality is sanctioned on ceases to exist and the WA is satisfied that a similar conflict will not break out for a sensible period of time.

5. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Relief Aid to civilian populations and the military wounded, but recommends that casualties receiving humanitarian aid should not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that a Neutral Nation may at their discretion, adapt any of the measures above where appropriate to protect themselves from Belligerent Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly, involving but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, or economic/trade sanctions.

APPLAUDS Nations that avoid armed conflicts for the purpose of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

It's going ahead with minor corrections. I believe that this can still become a resolution at vote with minor corrections, in fact, parts which may cause complications such as the last part of 2a are removed.

That'd be my final version.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear earlier. I can't edit in the other version or change anything about it.

If I delete it now, you lose all Approvals and start from scratch. You tell me if that's what you want me to do.

The WA Council in Charlotte Ryberg at an emergency meeting has agreed that the proposal will go ahead to the voting floor, as it is satisfied by majority that it is reasonably clear and effective enough.

Amanda however recommends that we should start a fresh thread dedicated to the proposal at vote, as we did in the voting of resolution #5, Coordinating Relief Aid. The decision by the council is now binding and is happy to see in protection for smaller and vulnerable nations from belligerent nations.

In other news, they've also agreed that this thread shall be preserved as a milestone of the risks Charlotte Ryberg have taken to promote world peace.

Go ahead and create your AT VOTE: <name> [Official Topic]. I'll stick it once it's made.

On my way, Frisbeeteria. I'll give you the go signal when ready.

[EDIT] All done!

"Charlotte Ryberg, ready! World Assembly, ready!... 3, 2, 1..."

I would like to commend the delegate from Charlotte Ryberg on the outstanding work in bringing this important proposal forward...and particularly for the outstanding patience and understanding brought to the debate on this forum.

There are few resolutions (though thankfully more than there used to be) that receive this level of review and revision.

While I'm proud to have my name attached to this as the original NSUN author - all credit goes to Charlotte Ryberg and those that engaged in this meaningful and productive discussion.

Cheers.