NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Medium to Strong (I'm not entirely sure whaere it fits in: If anyone can tell me I will gladly edit this post to reflect its actual strength)


DRAFT: Rules defining the position of humanitarian workers in warzones

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(OOC: This is my first piece of draft legislation-as opposed to just chucking an idea up in the air and watching it crash land (Which is highly dispiriting)- So any input is welcomed)

Legislation dictating the legal status and position of humanitarian workers in warzones
RECOGNISING the efforts of Doctors,Nurses,relief workers and other medical/humanitarian workers in warzones world-wide;

CONCERNED that no piece of WA legislation has been passed showing their legal status;

The World Assembly,

Sets out the following set of rules:

1. States that Doctors,Nurses and all other Medical and Humanitarian workers (Hereafter abbreviated as DNMH's) Are considered to be non-combatants:They may not be taken as POW's,Shot at or targeted in any way. Intentional violation of these rules shall be treated as a war crime. Should any DNMH be taken prisoner by accident,they should be released immediately.

2. DNMH's shall not be considered to be part of any armed force for the purpose of determining who they give aid to: They shall give medical aid to any friendly soldiers,Pow's and civilians who request it.

3. For the purpose of other resolutions,DMNH's in warzones are considered to have all the rights of Humanitarian workers: IE they are humanitarian cargo's, but are not bound to follow the orders of the ICRC while they remain in the warzone.

4. DMNH's must not be prevented from continuing their efforts to aid fellow human beings.

5. The use of a DMNH as a human shield is a war crime.

6. DMNH's include those who have been sent by governments to aid civilians.

Nice work so far, but how do you propose to "label" DNMH's? - Any nation can simply publish a list of lieutenants claiming to be DNMH's, and they would never be shot at or taken prisoner...

Personal badges? ID's like Passports?

I'd vote down the legislation so far anyway.

You need to add "DMNHs must not use this freedom of action for the purpose of espionage".

And their legal immunity from being shot at presumably doesn't forbid the bombardment of areas within which they might be present, right?

What about non-civilian caregivers, such as military doctors, or even soldiers guarding humanitarian operations? The Quintessential Defence Forces have spent more time building bridges and irrigation systems than fighting years in the past decade; but from this, it's unclear whether they would be given protected status. (I'm not particularly arguing they should be; just that it needs to be made clearer.)

I'm also unsure what the latter half of Clause 3 means.

-- Samantha Benson

I could have sworn I replied to this thread. Could Jolt have lost some posts???

Anyway, I'm happy to post again. :) No harm.

1. States that Doctors,Nurses and all other Medical and Humanitarian workers (Hereafter abbreviated as DNMH's) Are considered to be non-combatants:They may not be taken as POW's,Shot at or targeted in any way. Intentional violation of these rules shall be treated as a war crime. Should any DNMH be taken prisoner by accident,they should be released immediately.

I would like to suggest that instead of calling them DNMH, just call them emergency responders or humanitarian responders (the H part). The reason being is that firefighters, law enforcement officers, social workers, engineers, and GIS specialists / surveyors also function in non-combat related emergency response roles.

Given that many players wanted my resolution to be more specific, I do understand and recommend spelling out who / what "humanitarian responders" are.

You need to add "DMNHs must not use this freedom of action for the purpose of espionage".

And their legal immunity from being shot at presumably doesn't forbid the bombardment of areas within which they might be present, right?

Two good questions. For the first, perhaps just saying that they can have their protected status revoked if they act in any capacity beyond that of providing humanitarian assistance, and then to follow up by adding a clause that humanitarian responders that have their status revoked can be held accountable for their actions, but also recommending that when possible that it might be best to simply export them.

As for bombardment, that could be an entirely different "global disarmament" resolution limiting combat operations in other emergency zones. It is a very difficult subject, but worth exploring.

Clarification of clause 3:
They cannot refuse to give medical aid,WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, to an injured POW or civilian.

Yeah,there should be something about espianage in here. As i said,this is a draft and I will think up some stuff (too tired now...*YAWN*)

Clarification of clause 3:
They cannot refuse to give medical aid,WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, to an injured POW or civilian.

Yeah,there should be something about espianage in here. As i said,this is a draft and I will think up some stuff (too tired now...*YAWN*)

Don't feel the need to rush! It is common knowledge that my latest resolution has been kicking around for a year and I have another 3 year old trade agreement I'd like to sneak by. ;)

My goal with resolutions is to get attacked by extremists from both sides, i.e. find a middle ground.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Medium to Strong (I'm not entirely sure whaere it fits in: If anyone can tell me I will gladly edit this post to reflect its actual strength)


DRAFT: Rules defining the position of humanitarian workers in warzones

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislation dictating the legal status and position of humanitarian workers in warzones
RECOGNISING the efforts of Doctors,Nurses,relief workers and other medical/humanitarian workers in warzones world-wide;

CONCERNED that no piece of WA legislation has been passed showing their legal status;

The World Assembly,

Sets out the following set of rules:

1. Establishes the fact that Doctors,Nurses and all other Medical and Humanitarian workers are Identified by either the wearing of an organisations symbol (IE red cross etc.) and CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF A FRONT-LINE UNIT OR ARMY. Engineering and Medical corps, yes: Tank commander,NO.

2. States that Doctors,Nurses and all other Medical and Humanitarian workers (Hereafter abbreviated as HW's) Are considered to be non-combatants:They may not be taken as POW's,Shot at or targeted in any way. Intentional violation of these rules shall be treated as a war crime. Should any HW be taken prisoner by accident,they should be released immediately.

3. HW's shall not be considered to be part of any armed force for the purpose of determining who they give aid to: They shall give medical aid to any friendly soldiers,Pow's and civilians who request it.They cannot refuse to give medical aid,WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, to an injured POW,friendly soldier or civilian


4. For the purpose of other resolutions,HW's in warzones are considered to have all the rights of Humanitarian workers: IE they are humanitarian cargo's, but are not bound to follow the orders of the ICRC while they remain in the warzone.

5. HW's must not be prevented from continuing their efforts to aid fellow human beings.

6. The use of a HW as a human shield is a war crime.

7. HW's include those who have been sent by governments to aid civilians, such as engineering corps from an army not taking part in a conflict.

8. HW's shall not use this freedom of movement for espionage; Those that have been found to have done so can no longer qualify for the status of HW and shall be deported to their country of origin.

9. Nothing in this resolution prohibits the bombardment of an area containing HW's, Though it would be appreciated if a warning could be sent to the HW's. This last is not binding; It is merely a gesture that would be appreciated.

10. This resolution does,however,prohibit a targeted strike against a building known to contain HW's (IE Mortaring a relief center.)

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Medium to Strong (I'm not entirely sure whaere it fits in: If anyone can tell me I will gladly edit this post to reflect its actual strength)

I usually save the category towards the end of the drafting process, and I also tend to like mild resolutions. I think the strength is a function of the tone of the words. Do you URGE or REQUIRE? The first is more mild in nature, while the later is stronger.

I think you are right that what you have now is more medium, or "Significant".


DRAFT: Rules defining the position of humanitarian workers in warzones


You'll only have a few words worth of characters you can use for your title. Look at the old UN resolutions to get a feel for how long your title can be. This naturally can wait for the very end. :)


RECOGNISING the efforts of Doctors,Nurses,relief workers and other medical/humanitarian workers in warzones world-wide;


I always like preambulatory clauses like this. :)


CONCERNED that no piece of WA legislation has been passed showing their legal status;

Also valid.


1. Establishes the fact that Doctors,Nurses and all other Medical and Humanitarian workers are Identified by either the wearing of an organisations symbol (IE red cross etc.) and CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF A FRONT-LINE UNIT OR ARMY. Engineering and Medical corps, yes: Tank commander,NO.


There are different opinions here as to just how detailed a activating clause should be. Some players like the clauses to be very detailed and give examples, just as you've done. Others like the clauses to be more general (I'm usually in the second category, but in cases like this one, the generalite camp might be more likely to be happy with extra details). :)

Trying to keep with the spirit of what you are writing, what do you think of making a purely cosmetic change such as:

1. CALLS UPON medical and other humanitarian aid workers who wish to be granted special humanitarian protections, as defined below, to display clear identifications relevant to their specialized field of emergency response (such as a red cross),

2. PROHIBITS these special humanitarian aid workers from being a member combat unit (such as being part of am armored unit),

Basically I took your first clause it tried to break it into two parts. I kept some of your examples. Feel free to modify this. :)

You'll only have a few words worth of characters you can use for your title. Look at the old UN resolutions to get a feel for how long your title can be.
The maximum is 30 characters, including spaces, if I remember correctly...

Position of Aid workers in war As a title?

Mikivity,your point about the first clause is a good one.

"1. CALLS UPON medical and other humanitarian aid workers who wish to be granted special humanitarian protections, as defined below, to display clear identifications relevant to their Organisation or speciality (such as a red cross),"

Possibly "and speciality"?

"2. PROHIBITS these special humanitarian aid workers from being a member of a combat unit (such as being part of an armored unit),"

Couldn't have put it better.

Position of Aid workers in war As a title?

Mikivity,your point about the first clause is a good one.

"1. CALLS UPON medical and other humanitarian aid workers who wish to be granted special humanitarian protections, as defined below, to display clear identifications relevant to their Organisation or speciality (such as a red cross),"

Possibly "and speciality"?

"2. PROHIBITS these special humanitarian aid workers from being a member of a combat unit (such as being part of an armored unit),"

Couldn't have put it better.

Cool! :) Wrap this all into either your first post or repost the entire text here and let's see if some others weigh in.