NationStates Jolt Archive

Official Topic of Neutrality of Nations

Please familiarize yourself with the briefing presented below. Thank you.


Neutrality of nations
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

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

Description: 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.

Credits

Thanks to all the people who made this proposal reach this far. These include:

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.

Now, I couldn't possibly reply to the plethora of telegrams I received (OOC: Seriously, the limit of 15 is annoying), but I appreciate it none the less. So here's a public statement to all:

"Thank you, WA Delegates!"

Lets see it pass, baby! All sides of the debate are welcome.

-- Charlotte Ryberg, 25 July 2008

OOC: if you start replying as all of your characters again, you will lose my vote. Seriously.

The government of the emperor of Urgench is somewhat concerned that it has no idea whom it should address itself to with regard to this resolution, the list of persons connected with it is so long and confusing. Why can't the authors of this resolution speak for themselves?
We are very likely to vote yes to this resolution but we would prefer to do so after having some small matters made clearer.

yours e.t.c.

Oh, I would be pleased so much if more residents from the Wierd Anarchists would support me on the international forum. But they say: "Hey, you are the co-ordinator, we are against governments, so your the one who will do this dirty work for trying to achieve a better world when dealing with other nations. We only know citizens. You were well informed before you got this impossible task."
And than what happened; the kunega, comrades, queens, counsellors and kings of the other nations in Intelligentsia Islands endorsed our nation, so I am, as a drop out from the schooling system, also stuck with the WA-delegate status.

For my good colleague, the ambassador of the government of the emperor of Urgench, I have an advice. Send your telegrams to the nation of Charlotte Ryberg and, if they have a good system, they will know were to deliver the telegram. If not, maybe it will be the incident that improves their system.

Yours,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

The Environmental Fiscal Union of Minnow Economies regrets to inform the Mind of Charlotte Rysberg that although we can see many merits to the proposed Resolution, there are some fundamental flaws that Minnow Economies will not support.

Our objections were simple, namely:

1. In its good intentions, this resolution suggests that nations can declare themselves "Neutral" in a conflict, and that anyone attacking such a nation could expect repercussions from the rest of the WA. Our worry is that this could escalate conflict into a large scale war, involving nations that would otherwise prefer to remain pacifist.

2. When it suggests that no kind of trade may be undertaken with Belligerent Nations, we note with regret that this includes food, medicine, and other essentials that a civilian population would require during wartime. Considering trade is by far a more effective means than charity of getting such materials to civilian populations, this would probably effect the non-combatants of Belligerent nations *more* than it would their armies.

3. The BIG objection, however, is that this resolution provides no provision for enforcing its laws and statutes.

As such, we have decided to vote against the resolution, and encourage you to do the same. Nevertheless, any alternative viewpoints are also encouraged, and we'd love to hear your arguments.

Khalix Singh,
Minnow Economixian and Environmental Nations Delegate to the World Assembly,
The Axe Office,
Minnow Economies.

OOC: if you start replying as all of your characters again, you will lose my vote. Seriously.

Just me now. I've fired the others.

The Government of H.G.I.Majesty of Sildavialand has decided to vote for the resolution, although there is a point that is mostly confusing and ambivalent:

"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. "

:confused: Anybody may please kindly explain how the invasion and/or occupation of a Neutral Nation could possibily "convince the WA that in doing so, it will actually improve world peace"?

We are afraid that this clause will transform this resolution in a further "coquille vide" (empty shell) -there are already so many of them!- of International Law.

Mrs. Seca ExteCon, Imperial Secretary of Foreign Affairs

Whoa!

We're certainly not complaining, but... Charlotte Ryberg... Did you just vote against your own resolution? We didn't realise our arguments were *that* convincing!

If so, we commend and congratulate you on your clarity of vision!

Khalix Singh,
Minnow Economixian and Environmental Nations Delegate to the World Assembly,
The Axe Office,
Minnow Economies.

The government of the emperor of Urgench wonders if the most highly respected Delegate for the mind of Charlotte Ryberg thinks that a nuetral nation may remain so if it provides financial services (Banking, Loans e.t.c.) to belligerent nations, and are such services covered in this resolution?

yours e.t.c. ,

The Republic of Kazzan also takes issue with
"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. "

This is a serious potential threat to national sovereignty, and Kazzan will be voting against any resolution that retains this clause.

I'm currently in a war thread where i am the neutral side. If i send in soldiers to create a neutral zone in the country would that be in violation of this proposal?

I'm currently in a war thread where i am the neutral side. If i send in soldiers to create a neutral zone in the country would that be in violation of this proposal?

I dont really know. But i think that if you send soldiers to creat a zone where nobody fight, i think you dont choose anybodys side. So you are neutral.


O and i voted FOR at the WA.

Some interesting views did change my view on this proposal. I voted in favour of this proposal.

In the proposal is that belligerent Nations may not invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.

I do not care on my national sovereignty but I think this could bring in bigger wars.
Firstly I thought, no problem, the WA will never do that. But after rethinking it, I thought, this is bad. In real life that is why the war in Afghanistan started. And still that war is lasting. And such things are the same over Kosovo and Iraq, although on that were no UN resolutions. I do not believe in humanitarian intervention. I do think such things only will happen if a nation has a national selfish interest in a conflict. And I do not like the majority of the WA make such things happen.

So I do think I have to vote against this. But I will wait for more opinions from here and from the nations in Intelligentsia Islands before I will change my vote.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

I'm currently in a war thread where i am the neutral side. If i send in soldiers to create a neutral zone in the country would that be in violation of this proposal?

If you send your soldiers to a zone that is outside your country in one of the countries at war, I think you will certainly loose your neutral status when this proposal will become a approved WA resolution. Only when all sides in this war will ask you to do so, than it can be seen as trying to achieve an end to this war or something like that.

Cocoamok,
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

this is brilliant idea anybody who declares to be neutral in a war be protect and must remain neutral. The definition of war is a pretty good definition to me. If you declare neutrality, for the sake of peace, the remain Neutral.

Yea but the idea i had was to just make a small neutral zone where refugees could come to wait out the war.

I think that zone must be in your country or in another place, or ask both fighting parties if they agree, and your be fine.

It is a good idea, so go for it, I would say.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

I agree. And i think, that if you are neutral, and you go to a piece of a country, you wont loose your neutrality. I mean, you create a place where innocent civilians can go to, to flee. That is good right?

I'm abstaining, due to concerns previously voiced...

I think that it would hurt the economies of many countries by not allowing them to trade with countries at war. Also think of all the jobs lost to people working for the millitary.

My browser has gone crazy but I don't know whether I've pressed F5 too many times. now I do not wish to be one-sided at any vote until the final day, although sometimes I am inclined to click one of the two options.

Here's what everyone is saying here:

- Minnow Economies says that in good intentions, any belligerent nation attacking a neutral nation can expect consequences from other members of the WA. However, it says that repercussions from the rest of the WA may escalate into a large scale war, involving nations that intended to remain pacifist. I wish to state that it may be unlikely that such sanctions will result in further conflict in today's civilization unless it suddenly collapsed into medieval or barbaric standards for any reason. My recommendation to all nations is to use Diplomatic mediation as the first step, and retaliation as the very, very last resort.

- The last part of Section 2a ("MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.") intends to allow Belligerent Nations invade a 'neutral nation' whose civilians are under an oppressive military dictatorship. Sildavialand is concerned that this clause will result in a further "coquille vide" (empty shell), noting that there are already so many of them in real international law. I will accept this concern, because there may be parts missing which could have stated specifically the criteria required. Kazzan also takes issue with 2a, suggesting that the phrase "Unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace" should be removed altogether.

- When it suggests that no kind of trade may be undertaken with Belligerent Nations, Minnow Economies note with regret that this may include food, medicine, and other essentials that a civilian population would require during wartime. However, I wish to say that section 3a states that military supplies, such as guns and other weapons of destructive force are not to be traded: there is nothing in section 3a to suggest that food and everyday essentials are banned.

- Minnow Economies says that they were quite amazed when we initially voted against our own resolution. We did so because we believe clearly that clarity is a very good pointer to a quality resolution. We are currently waiting for other opinions now as we want to be WA delegate that will listen to everyone's opinions. We are listening.

- Urgench questions whether that financial services (Banking, Loans e.t.c.) between belligerent nations are banned. I wish to say that in 1a, Neutral nations cannot aid financially to the armed forces of Belligerent Nations only. Belligerents can't bribe neutral nations into allowing them to surrender because that would count as (in 2d) an act that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation. Other financial affairs are unaffected.

- United Dependencies is concerned whether creating a neutral zone in the country would that be in violation of this proposal. I wish to say that this would not be a violation if it was done diplomatically, as said in 1c, and then send the troops to look after it. Roef
says that if he send soldiers to create a zone where nobody fights, that would not be a violation as they are not on anyone's side. On balance I feel that creating a safe place for refugees is an act of humanitarian relief too, so it is okay.

- Wierd Anarchists is concerned that section 2a may result in bigger wars, as he notes the decision by the UN to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. I have already accepted a concern in relation to 2a and I will accept this one.

- gralvy is concerned that neutrality would economies of many countries by not allowing them to trade with countries at war. This may result, according to them , loss of jobs relating to the military. That is a good point to make and I will accept this as a concern on grounds that social welfare is quite important regardless of whatever side they live in.

As always, keep getting the opinions flowing!

Every nation on this planet must consider its first and foremost right to bear arms in the name of self-defence. This is another ploy by the evil liberals to disarm and subjugate the masses.

Earth Military Corps will not stand for this, you can expect my vote against your resolution, I have urged my allies to take this course of action as well.

While we agree that world peace between all nations would be a favourable conclusion, I believe this law would undermine the rule of Government in many of these nations. If this resolution leads to civil revolt, then the deaths of countless civilians will be on YOUR heads. Nations of the WA please join me in voting this foolish proposal down for the sake of your self and on behalf of your people.

Furthermore many nations rely on their arms to defend themselves from non-WA member states and let's not forget that economies that rely on profits generated from the defence industry will suffer.

So if i get permission from both sides to set up a zone were people can escape the conflict then it is ok?

"Urgench questions whether that financial services (Banking, Loans e.t.c.) between belligerent nations are banned. I wish to say that in 1a, Neutral nations cannot aid financially to the armed forces of Belligerent Nations only. Belligerents can't bribe neutral nations into allowing them to surrender because that would count as (in 2d) an act that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation. Other financial affairs are unaffected"

The Government of the emperor of Urgench is very gratefull that the wise and respected delegate for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg has addressed our queiries.
We are as yet undecided as to whether to vote yes to this proposal, as we feel that the funding of belligerent governments through loans and any provision of financial services seems to constistute a moral breach of "nuetrality".
We accept that the respected delegate and others here may have a different concept of nuetrality to ours and that this resolution may also define nuetrality differently to us.
We must also admit that we are unsure whether this kind of breach as we see it will dissuade us from voting for this resolution. However we do feel that the moral and ethical implications of the excemption of financial services and banking from the definition of nuetrality in this resolution should be explored.

Does the most highly esteemed delegate for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg think that non-belligerent nations should fund or provide banking services for belligerent governments if they wish to be seen as at least ethically nuetral? Stories of the mythical land of "Switzerland" and it's role in the legendary "second world war" are what prompt our concern.

yours sincerely,

yes. If you make a zone, where every scared civilian go's to, that is good.

We must reject this act. It will give all non-members of the W.A. a military advantage over us.

I realize that I inquired about this before in the drafting discussion and you responded that the language would be changed in the next draft. Unfortunately the version that was submitted has gone to vote.

I must ask again, what does this mean?

- A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality.

I think I know what you intended it to mean, but that's not what it says. What it says, in effect, is: A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that the Belligerent Nations observe obligations to justify the Neutral Nation's neutrality.

Even though it is in the preamble, I would consider this a fatal flaw in the text.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Although I do see many merits with a resolution such as this and appreciate the hard work that went into drafting it I have serious concerns with:

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.

This phrase seems vague and troubling. Under what circumstances could the devastation and militarization of a peace-loving, non-military nation that has claimed neutrality be justified???

A neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality.

In an idealistic, perfect world this would offer some protections to neutral nations, but eventually there would come a time where diplomacy and international pressure would fail and military action would be needed. Such action would broaden the scope of warfare and at the same time risk getting the international community indirectly involved in a conflict between two warring nations. This seems in contradiction to a proposal that claims to slash military spending and promote world peace.


Further, also as stated earlier by other nations, this proposal could economically damage neutral countries due to the trade restrictions. Many items involved in trade could be deemed for military use in some form or another. What is the standard and who actually decides what items can and cannot be involved in trade between neutral and belligerent nations?

In its current form I must vote AGAINST this proposal and I strongly urge others to do so also.

- The last part of Section 2a ("MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.") intends to allow Belligerent Nations invade a 'neutral nation' whose civilians are under an oppressive military dictatorship.So, in essence, neutral nations are only assured of their neutrality against attack by belligerent nations if the World Assembly approves of their system of government? I have trouble believing any legislator could be so reckless. And just how would "the World assembly" decide this? By vote? Because that would be illegal. Take note that our "no" vote is cast only with the most belligerent of intentions; if neutrality cannot be assured under international law, we resolve never to be neutral if we can help it, including on this vote.

The Blasterainian Government abhors this most disgusting resolution. the WA exists to protect the Sovereignty of every nation in the world! It doesn't exist to Impose its own twisted will on these so-called "Belligerent" Nations! If a nations Government decides to be neutral, its its own fault if they were far to weak to repel an fully armed invasion! The Fascist States of the Baltic, along with all its member Nations, fully Despise this resolution and believe that all Dictatorships and Military Regimes should band together to fight this beast, and make sure it never passes! As dictators, we need to fight the WA and its Power mongering!
Anyhow, as Alexei Borislav-Alexandrovich, i fully oppose this resolution and beleive it should be ended. Fini. VOTE IT DOWN.

the WA exists to protect the Sovereignty of every nation in the world!

It is the view of the sovereign Dominion of Faereyjar that the resolution in question enshrines the principle that each member state is guaranteed by this body the protection of the most fundamental form of sovereignty: independence. The motives of "belligerent" nations shall be, and must always be, suppressed such that the right of all peoples to govern themselves in the manner they deem most appropriate, free from the fear of aggressors, is maintained. Those who wish for a peaceable and cooperative existence must be preferred and guarded in this body above and against those who seek the possessions of the neighbors, extinguish their liberties and bring onto them undo hardship.

An affirmative vote for the resolution in question by the Dominion of Faereyjar has been given.

the WA exists to protect the Sovereignty of every nation in the world! It doesn't exist to Impose its own twisted will on these so-called "Belligerent" Nations!

The mystical FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq#WA) handed down to us from the Tetragrammaton Lord of This World states that "The WA is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision". Hence, I suggest that the ambassador from Blasterainia is incorrect and the WA can impose whatever its members want, subject of course to the restrictions of its own procedural rules.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder, Democratic Underground region

The TALLY CLERK: Goobergunchia voted for the World Assembly Resolution "Neutrality of Nations".

all that would ever come out of it is that grand militarized nations will attack small and peacefull nations with no one to interupt them from doing so...
We have to let diplomacy and common sence to take its natural course.
In fact, im willing to bat on it! ;)

let's say that if im wrong i'll pay you big amount of money but untill that happens you pay me small amount of money every month, deal? :D

Some MIGHT call it insurance, I call it gentelmen pact!!!

Yonagigai applauds the noble sentiment behind this resolution. However, defining Neutrality does little to advance the cause of Peace or Disarmament.

With regret, Yonagigai must vote against this resolution as it provides little benefit to society at large. If a resolution cannot achieve some good, then it should not be supported.

Earth Military Corps, I have accepted your concern and I will take this into account when we decide our final stance on Monday. This will allow other nations to follow our stance.

Urgench is concerned that the funding of belligerent governments through loans and any provision of financial services seems to constitute a moral breach of "neutrality". They accept that we may have a different concept of neutrality to theirs and that this resolution may also define neutrality differently to them. In my perspective, funding the military of belligerent nations is not being neutral, but I have to admit that this resolution is missing coverage of financial and banking services. However, we believe that when a neutral nation gives money to a Belligerent nation, we are concerned that they could use the money to build new weapons for battle by paying other belligerent nations for the desired parts. What worries us further is that during war Belligerent Nations could seize bank accounts of every civilian to fund their operations.

Lawinstien is worried that this resolution will give all non-members of the W.A. a military advantage over us. I will accept this concern.

Yelda is concerned that the phrase "A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality" may mean that a Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that the Belligerent Nations observe obligations to justify the Neutral Nation's neutrality. I have accepted the concern because it is a little bit to open. It would be good to see how other interpret it so we can improve on it in the event it gets defeated or repealed.

I will accept the concerns of all 'no' voters, as we believe in clarity. However, it is wise to let everyone in the WA have a fair say on this resolution. I will vote, on Monday a side in which it is good for the rest of the WA, and I encourage others to follow us. I will give a very good justification to why i have chosen this: so please trust me.

"Urgench is concerned that the funding of belligerent governments through loans and any provision of financial services seems to constitute a moral breach of "neutrality". They accept that we may have a different concept of neutrality to theirs and that this resolution may also define neutrality differently to them. In my perspective, funding the military of belligerent nations is not being neutral, but I have to admit that this resolution is missing coverage of financial and banking services. However, we believe that when a neutral nation gives money to a Belligerent nation, we are concerned that they could use the money to build new weapons for battle by paying other belligerent nations for the desired parts. What worries us further is that during war Belligerent Nations could seize bank accounts of every civilian to fund their operations."


The government of the emperor of Urgench must thank the respected delegate for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg once again for the time they have taken to respond to us.
We are somewhat perplexed that the respected delegate seems to be freely admitting a fair number of ommissions, lacunae, and possible unintended negative conseqeunces within a resolution which had a very long period of drafting in which it would seem possible that these kinds of issues should have been raised and dealt with. Are there any good reasons why these mistakes have made it through to the final submition of this resolution? Are there meaningful reasons for these ommissions? Does this resolution have a purpose that has not allowed for some of these issues to be dealt with?
We are as yet still unsure as to how to vote on this resolution and on how to canvass our regional neighbours in the w.a. and our regional Delegate. Unless cogent arguments for the actual benefits of voting yes to the resolution are presented by the highly respected delegate for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg we greatly regret we may have to abstain or vote no and recommend the same to others.

yours sincerely,

you all are idiots!!!

you all are idiots!!!

And you're a flamer. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, don't post.

What if a peaceful nation is attacked by another nation would it violate neurality to send aid and money to the nation that is defending itself?

- The last part of Section 2a ("MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.") intends to allow Belligerent Nations invade a 'neutral nation' whose civilians are under an oppressive military dictatorship.

Ah, if that's your intention you might want to have a peek at WA resolution #2, which includes this line.
Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.


As for the thing as a whole, I'm against the idea of having to declare ourselves neutral for every time some tin-pot liberalist decides to invade a miltary dictatorship.

Kari Kagrosi
Bloodstonian WA Pirate

I just don't think this proposal leaves enough room for nations to remain neutral but still help someone who is being wrongfully invaded.

Urgench is perplexed whether there were any good reasons why these mistakes have made it through to the final submisson of this resolution. They ask whether there are meaningful reasons for these omissions. They also ask whether this resolution have a purpose that has not allowed for some of these issues to be dealt with?

We don't want to cover up things; we want to tell the truth and be fair. Nobody is perfect, and furthermore, there is no perfect resolution what will solve everything. Sometimes we do not notice mistakes until someone raises it later on.

There are many good sides to the resolution, still. I believe that many WA members are small and vulnerable amongst the 18,474 in total and I believe that this resolution will protect them.

Phrases such as "MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace." will ban belligerent nations from invading neutral nations unless research proves that their governments are going to launch a mighty and devastating war on another country uninvolved, and that would count as a risk to world peace. Another example of a threat to world peace, in any country would be civil war whereas two factions within one country fight each other, often resulting in death and destruction.

I can justify that Section 5 is a good one because it isn't banning Humanitarian Aid agencies from doing their job. Irrespective of any country. Whenever there is a war. This resolution will still allow all groups irrespective of origin to stage relief aid to anyone. The fact that casualties receiving humanitarian aid should not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war can be justified because casualties are often traumatised by their injuries, and that they need a good place to recover and get back on track. It's not really nice to send casualties back to Belligerent Nation X if they are going to conscript anyone irrespective of status, only to end up injured or even dead (zOMG!).

Section 3 makes sure that Belligerent Nations don't benefit from weapons or any fighting equipment a neutral nation may give. Take one scenario where Nation A gives Nation B an empty warhead, appearing to be completely useless. But then behind the backs of Nation A, Nation B could then convert an empty shell into a nuclear weapon which could then be used to attack nation A. This shows that nearly anything can be turned into a kind of weapon. Section 3 therefore means that it will be harder for Belligerents to make a war progress using anything from neutral nations.

The fact is that nations have the right to choose to refuse war. War is not everyone's game.

BTW: If a peaceful nation is attacked by another nation then they can choose to refuse war and be neutral. The belligerent has to cease and desist attacking because that is simply, straightforwardly, the rule (section 2). Therefore sending aid and money to the neutral nation is not a violation.

BTW: If a peaceful nation is attacked by another nation then they can choose to refuse war and be neutral. The belligerent has to cease and desist attacking because that is simply, straightforwardly, the rule (section 2). Therefore sending aid and money to the neutral nation is not a violation.

Great, I was worried about my vote for this resolution. But if saying you are neutral (and following the rules for that) will stop an attacking nation it will be the best solution against war (or loosing a war).

Still I am worried about this:
In the proposal is that belligerent Nations may not invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace. But I hope that the WA will never say that invading and/or occupying a country will improve world peace. I know many are in favour of a humanitarian intervention but such proposal will never get enough support in time.

So my vote in favour still stand as it is. But maybe better ideas will change my vote.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

It would be against the wa rules

The government of the emperor of Urgench is in debt once again to the honoured delegate for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg for their attention to our concerns. We wish to assure them that we never suspected them of concealing their motives from the w.a. , we only wished for the honoured delegate to make clear there reasoning in the formulation of this resolution.
The honoured delegate has gone some way towards doing that, however we will still reserve our judgement for now, and observe further the course of this debate before making our decision.

Does the honoured delegate feel passionately that this resolution should be passed? It has been suggested elsewhere that the honoured delegate might be planning to vote against this resolution, is that compatible with the fact that they have authored and sponsored it?

yours sincerely,

I just don't think this proposal leaves enough room for nations to remain neutral but still help someone who is being wrongfully invaded.

Neutrality is a per-war issue, the resolution's pretty clear about that. If you help one side of a war, you have no reasonable claim to being neutral in that war, have you?

You can't even have something like the lend lease act? The us was able to remain neutral at the time when they did that.

I worry about the trade and national sovereignty repercussions of this, and little has been said to lessen my worry. A nation should be able to trade oil, foods , etc and remain neutral.. you are not involved in the war so why can't you simply trade with whom you desire.. even both sides. And I agree with what was said earlier the WA should not have the power to allow , a nation to invade another.



-Regional Delegate of La Mafia

I just don't think this proposal leaves enough room for nations to remain neutral but still help someone who is being wrongfully invaded.

I think that's the point. By aiding one side that you believe to be the aggrieved party, you are taking a side in the conflict. This status would be for nations looking to wash their hands of the whole affair.

My problem with it is that short of severing all trade with warring nations, it would be difficult to define what would constitute trade in military supplies. Is it just ammunition and war machines? Oil that could be used to fuel tanks? Steel that could be used to make tanks? Food that could be used to feed the army? Boots? Leather for boots?

Would members of this Assembly please stop babbling about nations that don't exist, at least in this universe?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder, Democratic Underground region

Neutrality is a per-war issue, the resolution's pretty clear about that. If you help one side of a war, you have no reasonable claim to being neutral in that war, have you?

Mate what you just said isn't being neutral at all, but all in all Kirshbia is in on it.

Urgench questions whether we feel passionately that this resolution should be passed, noting that it has been suggested elsewhere that the honoured delegate might be planning to vote against this resolution... well, let me apologise for a slight technical error on Saturday in which I accidentally pressed the wrong button. Anyway, it was pretty stupid for me to jump to conclusions so early and hopefully nothing like this would happen again. I know it is and I am sorry for the confusion.

I have to admit that Neutrality of Nations has an incredible potential because small or vulnerable nations will have an improved chance of survival simply by refusing to fight. It's quite similar to the opt-out schemes for marketing calls and such, in this case it the right to choose not to fight as long they (the neutral nation) act reasonably like a proper neutral nation.

Each war is dealt with individually, so neutrality is on a per-war basis, as Gobbannaen WA Mission suggests, as the phrase "DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution 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" states. To be neutral from that war is that belligerent nations involved in that war can't bother them. They won't be able to because that is the mandate (section 2).

On balance of all the views I have received, I approve of this resolution for the following reasons:

- The real aim of the WA is to create a fair and peaceful society, discouraging war and its potentially devastating effects. Neutrality of Nations is written to give small and/or vulnerable Member nations the right to survive by declaring themselves neutral. There is no limit on how many wars they can declare themselves neutral, because neutrality is dealt individually for each war that exists.

- The last section of 2a exists because I care about ordinary civilians' right to peace. One major example of this is getting caught up in a civil war, which normally involves just one nation. If Nation A is neutral from War A and there is a civil war (or War B) which is putting innocent lives at serious risk then a belligerent nation of War A, who has enough power to end civilian suffering, is still able to intervene on condition that it actually resolves or at least subdue War B for the benefit of innocent civilians. It is difficult to determine the outcome of such interventions as each nation possess its own characteristics and stats.

- If an nation wants to be neutral then to be a proper neutral nation, some trade would have to be sacrificed. The ban only affects military supplies and war booty coming out of that war, lasting until the end of the war, of course. There is nothing to suggest that food, everyday essentials or even international bank transactions between ordinary people are banned. In financial terms Neutral nations cannot aid financially to the armed forces of Belligerent Nations only as that is supporting a war. Belligerents can't bribe neutral nations into allowing them to surrender because that would count as (in section 2d) an act that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

- Neutral zones for the purpose of protecting refugees is an act of humanitarian relief, not war. The best way is to negotiating peacefully with both parties to create one (exception allowed under 1c), and then keep it safe. Keeping a neutral zone safe is not a violation of section 1.

- In terms of the economy, the arms industry in neutral nations are not banned from existing, but it cannot sell its arms to the belligerent nation because it may be used in an existing war or worse. All nations should always to their best, even when not in war, ensure that unemployment is dealt with by perhaps help them earn new skills or new careers.

- The fact is, I cannot ban war totally. All I can do is make war a bit more fairer for everyone, regardless of the ferocity. However, If you wish for me to write a resolution that broadly strengthens the military power of Member Nations, weak or strong, and which is independent of this resolution at vote, I am happy to do so. I'll explain possible approaches to the defence strengthening plan after the vote. I can help you to survive wars but it needs to be done in a good way.

If you have any more questions please contact us here and I will get back to you ASAP.

I worry about the trade and national sovereignty repercussions of this, and little has been said to lessen my worry. A nation should be able to trade oil, foods , etc and remain neutral..
How? I've asked this again and again, and no one has justified this to me. If you trade with one side of a war and not the other, how exactly are you being neutral? You aren't; you're supporting one side's military machine by literally fuelling it, and leaving the other side to go whistle.

Remember, the neutrality that we're talking about is a very specific position with a lot of protections attached to it. The moment you can't justify being a disinterested observer to a conflict, you should lose those protections.

you are not involved in the war
Yes, you are. You became involved when you assisted a war economy. You may not be shooting bullets, but you're involved all right.

so why can't you simply trade with whom you desire.. even both sides.

Both would be acceptable to me, provided that you traded scrupulously evenly with both sides. I thought about phrasing that in water-tight legalese briefly, then took an asprin and lay down. It's better to forbid contributory trade entirely than to get it wrong and allow neutrals to show bias.

Mate what you just said isn't being neutral at all, but all in all Kirshbia is in on it.
Exactly. United Dependencies and friends were saying that it was neutral to do that, and I was just pointing out that they were wrong.

I apologise for posting this in two threads...but wanted to ensure there was no doubt of my support for this proposed resolution.

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.

while this is a worthy motion, it only deals with traditional warfare between sovereign entities. The vast majority of modern wars are either fought by proxy, or involve transnational organisations, and these situations remain unaddressed by the proposal.

For this reason, while wishing to support the proposal, I was forced to oppose it.

Llanvorda.

How? I've asked this again and again, and no one has justified this to me. If you trade with one side of a war and not the other, how exactly are you being neutral? You aren't; you're supporting one side's military machine by literally fuelling it, and leaving the other side to go whistle.

So because Nation A and Nation B wind up in a war. Nation C which is Neutral in the armed conflict can no longer trade anything with either of them; because doing so means they are actually picking a side and are now engaged.. No its called economy and they wish to improve their own it is highly likely they are trading with both sides. That does not mean they wish to send men tanks and planes or ships. They simply wish to trade as they did with a nation before said war and durning said war. the WA doesnt have the right to ban trade to protect neutrality, Nor does it have the right to give nations permission to invade a neutral or ANY nation for "the greater good"

While I myself was staunchly against this, my region uses direct democracy for resolutions.. This one passes by 1 vote. So I Dissent the passing but have voted for it. Despite that I still oppose this resolution And believe yet again if not for its title, the positions would be swapped (make the yes votes the no votes and the no votes the yes votes)

So because Nation A and Nation B wind up in a war. Nation C which is Neutral in the armed conflict can no longer trade anything with either of them; because doing so means they are actually picking a side and are now engaged.. No its called economy and they wish to improve their own it is highly likely they are trading with both sides. That does not mean they wish to send men tanks and planes or ships. They simply wish to trade as they did with a nation before said war and durning said war. the WA doesnt have the right to ban trade to protect neutrality, Nor does it have the right to give nations permission to invade a neutral or ANY nation for "the greater good"

While I myself was staunchly against this, my region uses direct democracy for resolutions.. This one passes by 1 vote. So I Dissent the passing but have voted for it. Despite that I still oppose this resolution And believe yet again if not for its title, the positions would be swapped (make the yes votes the no votes and the no votes the yes votes)


The government of the emperor of Urgench suggests to the respected representative for Wencee that what they call "economy" others would call "immoral war profiteering" which would substantially constitute side taking were it to be biased in favour of nation A instead of nation B.

yours e.t.c. ,

This is great idea. Neutrality is a good idea for developing nations and for nations with weak militaries. Yanbania declares yes on this vote.

The Yanbanian President

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but what happens if a nation declares itself neutral, and promptly gets squelched?

I see the point behind this resolution, but without an enforcement mechanism it's largely irrelevant, because tbh if one needs to cut through a weak nation en route to war, one is not gonna care too much if it's neutral, unless you make one - if that makes sense at all? (I changed all the 'I, me' to 'one' because it made me sound terribly belligerent, and now it doesn't scan too well :s)

So because Nation A and Nation B wind up in a war. Nation C which is Neutral in the armed conflict can no longer trade anything with either of them; because doing so means they are actually picking a side and are now engaged.. No its called economy and they wish to improve their own it is highly likely they are trading with both sides.
Good grief. I thought we Gobbannaeg were naive about economics.

Trading with both warring nations tends to get both of them hacked off at you. You are, after all, supporting their enemy. It happens a lot less than you seem to believe, and generally turns out badly.

Because trading with someone improves their situation. You give them something in exchange for something they value less, otherwise they wouldn't be trading with you. This improves their resources, which gives them more resources to throw into the war effort. In extremis, the trade keeps the war economy able to function at all.

Take food as an apparently innocent example. Suppose you trade food destined for the hungry civilians of Wartopia, and in a burst of pacifism you even send observers in to be sure that it goes to the supermarkets and from them to the man in the street. All that happens is that the food which would otherwise have had to feed the civilians is now freed up to feed the troops. Congratulations, Holmes, you've just aided their war effort.

That does not mean they wish to send men tanks and planes or ships.
Indeed not. It doesn't change the fact that they help Wartopia to field more men, tanks, planes and ships simply because the Wartopians now have the resources to do so.

They simply wish to trade as they did with a nation before said war and durning said war.
And I wish they the nations weren't at war in the first place. We don't always get our wishes granted, especially when they aren't reasonable.

Actually I don't wish that at all, because there are some people who need a good thumping, but you know what I mean.

the WA doesnt have the right to ban trade to protect neutrality, Nor does it have the right to give nations permission to invade a neutral or ANY nation for "the greater good"
::snort:: Which rock have you been living under? The WA has exactly the rights that it collectively decides to give itself, subject to its rules and procedures. It's debatable whether it could ban all trade between and from WA nations outright -- which would be silly -- but saying that you can't trade with someone and be neutral in their conflicts is well within what it can do. Take your empty rhetoric elsewhere.

Sadly you are ignorant in your nation, and of more then just economics, if I recalled I said trade goods implying not war materials- if I give you milk and bread that could feed anyone it doesnt go right to an army, you blame the person who gave the milk and bread to the nation.. not that nations leaders who decided where it should go. Maybe you need a lesson in distribution? . And you made a nice dodge on the "Take over a neutral nation for the greater good" point. So how about you take you're rhetoric which is empty enough to fill a warehouse and stuff it :)

Sadly you are ignorant in your nation, and of more then just economics, if I recalled I said trade goods implying not war materials- if I give you milk and bread that could feed anyone it doesnt go right to an army, you blame the person who gave the milk and bread to the nation.. not that nations leaders who decided where it should go. Maybe you need a lesson in distribution? . And you made a nice dodge on the "Take over a neutral nation for the greater good" point. So how about you take you're rhetoric which is empty enough to fill a warehouse and stuff it :)


Must the respected ambassador for Wencee really stoop to insults and vulgar imprecations to make what ever foolish point they seem to wish to make? The Honoured ambassador for the Gobbanean WA mission has done you the decency of politely trying to show you their point of view, an eminently sensible one at that, can you not show them equal good manners in using language commensurate with your position as a diplomat in a debate at the world assembly?

yours e.t.c.

If this passes, I'll eat my hat and shoot my Foreign Minister.

Must the respected ambassador for Wencee really stoop to insults and vulgar imprecations to make what ever foolish point they seem to wish to make? The Honoured ambassador for the Gobbanean WA mission has done you the decency of politely trying to show you their point of view, an eminently sensible one at that, can you not show them equal good manners in using language commensurate with your position as a diplomat in a debate at the world assembly?

yours e.t.c.


And yet you casually dismiss "Take your empty rhetoric elsewhere." Which is simply stating in round - about terms what I stated directly rather then attempting to dazzle the reader with stupendously studious means of speech. Also; Keep your sanctimony to yourself I want none of it. And am withdrawing my vote pending a discussion with my governments leaders and citizens pending on certain matters. EDIT: Rediscussed, La Mafia Now votes AGAINST current resolution.

and my dear Theoroshia you must prepare to eat your hat and to kill your Foreign Minister , only a miracle could stop this one.

If this passes, I'll eat my hat

I'll make the first part a bit easier ...

http://www.alicia-rios.com/en/food/edible-representations/ediblehats_gall/img/sombreros-comestibles-2.jpg

if I give you milk and bread that could feed anyone it doesnt go right to an army, you blame the person who gave the milk and bread to the nation..So that food goes to non-combatants. Which means other food that would go to them can now go to soldiers.

....Or the Citizens would simply be going with less, Also the opposite is possible.. His points on econmics were wrong and restating the point that "well now the food is going to go to the solider.. Do you not comprehend its already going to them.. A government will Ration food supplies heavily on the people and feed the army.. The army was already fed before my bread and milk got there, Point less argument. As for supporting their war effort. Im neutral I don't care about their war effort what I care about is my nations economy .. if they are my main trading partner for Milk and in return I get plastics.. you stopped my main importation of plastics..

And that amazing lesson in economics was fantastic.. "You give them something in exchange for something they value less" .. priceless. Remember you give them something in exchange for something they VALUE yet have an abundance of. Its not a lacking of value, you simply can't trade what you don't have. So while they value their plastic they value my milk we equally value each others products and thus trade them in an exchange.

I am just glad this resolution has no teeth otherwise you would indeed create an environment less conducive to peace with foolish policies like this. And the day the WA says "take over that nation for the greater good" Is a sad day indeed. Which if this bill had and power behind it.. It could in effect do.

Urgench is talking sense - giving humanitarian aid to a country at war helps them free up more resources to direct towards military aims.

Having said that, it does seem a bit harsh that my economy should take a hit because one of my trading partners decides to go all gung-ho and invade his neighbour.

It has been decided, by the collective voices of the glorious Covenant High Counsel, to vote for this legistlation.
However, I do have 1 suggestion if you will.
As stated above, a problem with the trading process. What if, as stated above, Nation A and B are at war, C was trading with nation B. Nation C's core economic structure relies on a certain resource that B is willingly offering. Both nations were trading before the hostile actions were commenced.
To cease trade in, say, gold, between nation's B and C would ruin C's economy.
The high counsel of the Covenant Empire proposes that, should nation C maintain it's nuetrality, that the WA bring to the table nations that can also provide Nation C with either the resource in question, or perhaps, financial aid to keep it's economy, and government from collapse.


Prophet of foreign affairs of the Covenant Empire;
Prophet of Intellect

Not to stir the pot further, but withdrawing trade could be seen as taking the opposing nation's side, no? Allow me to expand: I trade grain with A, who as a consequence is able to largely ignore agriculture and instead concentrate on heavy industry. If B invades A and I halt grain exports (because I want to stay neutral), suddenly A has to feed a few extra million mouths instead of building nice shiny tanks. And gets its arse kicked. Technically, I've 'helped' B by degrading A's offensive capability, however unwittingly.

And from our point of view it makes war more likely, as we have to consider not just our disputes, but also those of our trading partners. And as I said, there's no way to stop B from stomping all over me too unless there's some sort of enforcement clause in there somewhere. Just saying.

Between the threats to national sovereignty, the loophole of NGO's being able to operate in neutral territories (thus completely ignoring the possibility of a war being orchestrated by a multinational corporation for the purpose of financial gain), and at least one "recommendation" which is a complete waste of ink, this badly-worded but well-conceived bill is being voted AGAINST by the Theocracy of Gabriel Possenti, and RECOMMENDS the author have some help in the rewrite based upon the pages of objections.

Signed,

The Most Holy Bishop of The Theocracy of Gabriel Possenti
(orange juice stain, transparent area, looks like bacon grease)

Although the Holy Republic of Pagan Love supports global disarmment, we cannot in good conscience vote for this resolution. As was stated earlier, this resolution will forbid giving food and medical aid, to nations involved in war. The concept of allowing another country's soldiers to die from starvation and disease is not acceptable to us. And socialist countries without powerful charities will also be unable to aid civilians in war torn countries.

If this resolution is rewritten at a later time to allow humanitarian aid, and sales of food and medicine, to warring countries, while still banning actual military aid, we will support it.

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.

See that end part there, the part that says "unless the [WA] is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace." It reminds of the time right before WW2 the REAL WORLD attempted to appease a little fascist nazi dictator in Germany. That needs removed, who is the WA to say that it will create world peace? Moreso, what needs to be done to convince the WA of this? There are no conditions set, some little nation is going to get screwed because of it.

The Dolphins seemed to be quite agitated by this proposal. They shieked vile curses and oaths upon anyone who came within earshot. even the brief sighting of a Thessadorian Princess wearing a very tight T-Shirt did not calm them down!

"What the <censored><bleep><bleeping<bleep> is wrong with your <gross word> people! Not only does this<vile word> keeps our nation from<yowzah>selling<dirty word> ordinance to both<censored> sides in a<anatomically impossible act> conflict! It will also<nasty word> keep us from <bleeping> performing our <censored> pasttime....Swearing at the <foul word> ships, of all <filthy word> Belligerants!<a long stream of very dirty words>

Furthermore, this <censored><bleep> allows <very dirty word> Belligerents to <censored> invade a neutral, if the WA deems it hunky dory! Whats up with that!<very vile and gross explitive>"

:mad :mad:

I canot believe this! It is obvious that since the world began there has been fighting and the weak don't survive, it is the strong who come out victorious! It is in the blood of us all to fight, even if it is "barbaric". This is absolutley insane. The way to end all world fighting is to elect a leader for the world! :hail:

I still don't see how this proposal actually *does* anything.

I'm at war, and my neighbour declares himself neutral. I invade and conquer him to punish his cheek. What you gonna do about it?

Since the Ambassador of Wencee clearly isn't worth wasting oxygen on, I'll have a go at this one:

"What the <censored><bleep><bleeping<bleep> is wrong with your <gross word> people! Not only does this<vile word> keeps our nation from<yowzah>selling<dirty word> ordinance to both<censored> sides in a<anatomically impossible act> conflict! It will also<nasty word> keep us from <bleeping> performing our <censored> pasttime....Swearing at the <foul word> ships, of all <filthy word> Belligerants!<a long stream of very dirty words>

No it doesn't, buster. It stops you selling to both sides and claiming to be neutral under the meaning of the act at the same time. Since the main effect of neutrality is a guarantee of not being shot at by the Belligerants, I can't imagine the Palantine caring all that much about it.

Furthermore, this <censored><bleep> allows <very dirty word> Belligerents to <censored> invade a neutral, if the WA deems it hunky dory! Whats up with that!<very vile and gross explitive>"
Oh come on, when have you ever seen the WA agree about anything being hunky dory? Except maybe for the divot who proposed Max Barry Day...

I still don't see how this proposal actually *does* anything.

I'm at war, and my neighbour declares himself neutral. I invade and conquer him to punish his cheek. What you gonna do about it?

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We must rise to second the sensible comments of the representative of Ocelot-onia. Without an enforcement mechanism, a resolution like this one is useless, and with one, it would establish a WA military that I am certain noone here wishes.

We believe the subject matter this proposal addresses is beyond the competence of this body, and therefore recommend a "no" vote on it.

A WA military actually isn't that bad of an idea really.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We must rise to second the sensible comments of the representative of Ocelot-onia. Without an enforcement mechanism, a resolution like this one is useless, and with one, it would establish a WA military that I am certain noone here wishes.

We believe the subject matter this proposal addresses is beyond the competence of this body, and therefore recommend a "no" vote on it.


Beyond the competence of this body? No, beyond the abilities of the authors of this resolution? Maybe. In any event this resolution does not really acheive it's own stated aims and raises far too many subsidiary problems by it's implementation. We feel that on balance we will vote no, and recomend the same to our region and it's delegate. It was a fair attempt and we are impressed by the patience and diligence it's authors showed in it's drafting.

yours e.t.c. ,

A WA military actually isn't that bad of an idea really.

Oh, yes it is. Don't even open that can of worms. There are enough nimrods who think that this august body is attempting to establish some uber-scary evil world government as it is.

As for this resolution, we remain unconvinced that is necessary or even desirable. We are therefore abstaining unless our region requests a vote one way or the other.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador and Security Chief

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We must rise to second the sensible comments of the representative of Ocelot-onia. Without an enforcement mechanism, a resolution like this one is useless, and with one, it would establish a WA military that I am certain noone here wishes.

We believe the subject matter this proposal addresses is beyond the competence of this body, and therefore recommend a "no" vote on it.

Still there is an enforcement mechanism in the WA. I believe it is like this:

Once a proposal becomes an approved resolution all laws of all WA nations will be changed so that the resolution is in all WA nations books of laws. So a nation will have to break its OWN laws to attack (or conquer) a neutral nation once this proposal is approved.

If the nation can go on with the war against the WA wishes than it will not be a WA nation any more.

I still think this resolution can be better worded and I have something against clause 2a. But I also think this is a good proposal to defend "neutral"states against war from other WA nations. I believe the subject matter this proposal addresses is in the competence of the WA. So I vote in favour.

Greetings,
Cocoamok

A WA military actually isn't that bad of an idea really.If by "not that bad" you mean "totally illegal," (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) then yes, it wouldn't be bad at all.

Oh come on, when have you ever seen the WA agree about anything being hunky dory? Except maybe for the divot who proposed Max Barry Day...Are you honestly contending that it's a good idea to pass a resolution that allows the WA to authorize the invasion of declared neutral nations? This is far worse than that damaging Humanitarian Intervention resolution, only this one is far more devious, in that it supposedly gives nations the right to declare neutrality, only to have it pulled out from under them if the WA decides it doesn't like a nation's government. The author so much as admitted it -- "improving world peace" can include if the neutral nation operates under "an oppressive military dictatorship." [OOC: One wonders just how many members of this body would favor such a provision were the "military dictatorship" named Iraq.]

This is a terrible, terrible resolution, and we urge all members present to vote it down, even if it is currently 2,000 votes ahead.

If a nation were to state that they were neutral in a war with one WA member nation and a non-member nation how exactly would that work? The non-member nation would not have to adhere to this or any other resolution. I do not think that any resolution should be passed that limits military activity in any way. It will only lead to further destruction and possible decimation of a nation that is simply trying to follow the law.

I encourage that all nations in the WA vote against this resolution. While it means well and would work wonderfully if ALL nations had to follow it, not all nations are in the WA. If this resolution is passed, I suggest that all delegates that voted against it vote on a proposal to get it struck down.

The Kingdom of Morrenstien
Regional WA delegate for Equinox

Maybe a compromise could be brought, that any nation is allowed to declare itself neutral and the WA would respect that and back it up should it be attacked by either another WA member or a nation that does not have WA membership.

Oh, yes it is. Don't even open that can of worms. There are enough nimrods who think that this august body is attempting to establish some uber-scary evil world government as it is.

As for this resolution, we remain unconvinced that is necessary or even desirable. We are therefore abstaining unless our region requests a vote one way or the other.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador and Security Chief

Perhaps if nations sent troops to enforce stuff in the name of the WA would that possibly work?

Perhaps if nations sent troops to enforce stuff in the name of the WA would that possibly work?

I can't see how that would work any better. An army "acting under the auspices of the WA" is a thin disguise for an official WA army. Either way, it would be illegal and also incredibly counterproductive. If nations want to form alliances or peacekeeping forces, they can already do so with no need for WA involvement.

At any event, we should probably stop jacking this thread, as it has nothing to do with mandating a WA army.

The fact that this resolution allows belligerent nations to invade neutral ones with a WA stamp of approval is frankly disturbing to us. We have shifted our position and are now voting against.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador and Security Chief

I can't see how that would work any better. An army "acting under the auspices of the WA" is a thin disguise for an official WA army. Either way, it would be illegal and also incredibly counterproductive. If nations want to form alliances or peacekeeping forces, they can already do so with no need for WA involvement.

At any event, we should probably stop jacking this thread, as it has nothing to do with mandating a WA army.



-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador and Security Chief

agreed.

Are you honestly contending that it's a good idea to pass a resolution that allows the WA to authorize the invasion of declared neutral nations?

No, not really. It's definitely the most serious strike against this proposal, unlike the whining of all the people who don't seem to understand what the word "neutral" means. I just don't see it as having much chance of actually happening, so it's not an absolute show-stopper for me. Close enough to incline me against, though, despite a strong urge to vote FOR just to annoy Wencee.

My region, the Guerrilla Republik,does support peace between nations, but we also believe there are flaws in your proposal.

1. In agreement with the Delegate of the Minnow Economies, you must understand that there are no means of enforcing such a law.
This proposal is very similar to the unsuccessful proposal made by two politicians in an attempt to ban war from the world. (I believe it was the Kellog-Briand Pact, but pardon me if I'm wrong.) It couldn't be enforced without
means of physical violence. For instance, if I invaded a neutral country, no one could stop me from invading that country except an Army. An Army would mean a war between me, the invaded nation and its allies.

2. A nation should no longer be considered neutral if it decides to sell arms to a specific "side". By choosing a "side" in a war, you choose to support the belief of that country, which categorizes you as their ally.

Besides minor flaws in your proposition, it is an exceptional attempt at world peace/neurality. But remember, peace cannot be obtained as long as there are differences between countries. That is why my region represents the more radical views of politics. ¡Viva La Revelucion!

President of M0GADISHU,
Delegate of the GUERRILLA REPUBLIK

Excellent!

We actually get to vote on something this week! My congratulations to Charlotte Ryberg for *actually* managing to get something to reach quorum.

I originally cast my vote for this proposal, only to be immediately urged by certain concerned representatives to reconsider. Based upon the very valid concerns raised there, and here in this thread, I cannot anymore in good conscience submit my support for the Neutrality of Nations, whatever the good intentions.

Our region's vote has regrettably been cast AGAINST this proposal, as the author has also done (but has since withdrawn their vote).

______________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I have not read all of the topic except the first and last pages, so forgive me. Its late and I want to get this in before I turn in for the night.

My problem with the resolution is that it is under the category of 'Global Disarmerment' rather than 'International Security' or 'Furtherment of Democracy' categories. So I have to vote no rather than yes. I am not sure if this has been raised but I do not think that the WA nations should disarm over a Neutrality Resolution when defining Neutrality has little to do with disarming.

I must urge my fellow members to vote no.

I have not read all of the topic except the first and last pages, so forgive me. Its late and I want to get this in before I turn in for the night.

My problem with the resolution is that it is under the category of 'Global Disarmerment' rather than 'International Security' or 'Furtherment of Democracy' categories. So I have to vote no rather than yes. I am not sure if this has been raised but I do not think that the WA nations should disarm over a Neutrality Resolution when defining Neutrality has little to do with disarming.

I must urge my fellow members to vote no.

It is under global disarmament because with neutrality you maybe can have a smaller army.

Our region's vote has regrettably been cast AGAINST this proposal, as the author has also done (but has since withdrawn their vote).


As we can see the author has voted in favour now.

Still there is an enforcement mechanism in the WA. I believe it is like this:

Once a proposal becomes an approved resolution all laws of all WA nations will be changed so that the resolution is in all WA nations books of laws. So a nation will have to break its OWN laws to attack (or conquer) a neutral nation once this proposal is approved.

If the nation can go on with the war against the WA wishes than it will not be a WA nation any more.



So I invade and get kicked out the WA. Then what? Freed from the shackles of the WA, I can rape, pillage, and start NBC warfare left right and centre.

At the end of the day, kicking someone out the WA isn't *really* an enforcement measure, because it doesn't stop them doing anything. To really enforce this you're looking at some sort of guarantee by other nations to secure this neutrality, which opens up a whole can of worms.

The Government of Hamsterian agrees to this Proposal for 3 reasons:

1. The Nation that is neutral cannot be attacked or invaded for the conflicting war around them and if this is not met then the WA will consider suitable punishment for the offending Nation!

2. The Nation that is in conflict may NOT turn to Neutral Countries for help or resources as this goes against the Proposal!

3. If a war breaks out between 2 or more countries then the war is fought between those countries and neutral nations may not step in to try and stop the conflict or help different nations in winning if the nation want to stop the conflict they must themeselves in a proper political way!

These are the 3 reasons why the Government of Hamsterian is FOR the Proposal as it gives Neutral nations the chance of survival as in the current day those nations are invaded for the ongoing conflict for resources and forces!

So I invade and get kicked out the WA. Then what? Freed from the shackles of the WA, I can rape, pillage, and start NBC warfare left right and centre.

At the end of the day, kicking someone out the WA isn't *really* an enforcement measure, because it doesn't stop them doing anything. To really enforce this you're looking at some sort of guarantee by other nations to secure this neutrality, which opens up a whole can of worms.

You are right, if a nations army doesn't follow its own laws, nothing the WA can do than kicking it out of the WA. That is the way the WA is. A WA army or police is not allowed. It is the same with the WA Fair Trial resolution. If a nation doesn't follow that, it is out of the WA.

It would be nice if more could be done, but under the rules of NationStates WA nothing more can be done.

The People's Republic of GreatTree wishes to raise the following objections regarding the proposal:

Firstly, in Section 2, point a, there is a statement that seems to promote a severe breach of sovereignty. In supporting this resolution, one should be able to safely assume that, if they are acting in the name of peace and neutrality, they should be able to abstain from warfare. By allowing the WA to override the purpose of this resolution, and so quickly turn on those who are striving for peace, my confidence in the sincerity of this resolution is not great.

Secondly, in Section 3, part a, there is a provision requiring the swift closing of all trade relations dealing with military goods between countries. This provision ensures that any armed conflict will greatly affect the economies of not only the warring nations, but of countless other states. For a resolution that claims to work for the "greater good," I hardly find this to be a fair or humanitarian mandate.


Because of these grievances, I must vote against the proposed resolution.

There are problems with the proposal, and it was probably a little too hastily drafted. The truth of the matter is, the Republic of Scienceklubovia does not enjoy the fact that the World Assembly is knocking its nose into the business of other nations. Wars are very complex. For example, there may come a time when Scienceklubovia is being sanctioned against by nations outside the World Assembly, and may need to fight to revive their own prosperity. Under such circumstances, I would hate to have the World Assembly step in and punish our nation.

Also, section 1(c) is very clumsy, as, if broadly interpreted, many actions influence the outcome of a war, for better or for worse. I do not like putting the fate of the interpretation of this proposal in the hands of a very political World Assembly.

I urge all who respect their own rights and their own sovereignty and security to vote against this proposal, and those planning to vote for it to think again.

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced about the legality of clause 2a as I think it contradicts Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of WA States resolution.

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Kari Kagrosi
Bloodstonian UN Pirate

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced about the legality of clause 2a as I think it contradicts Article 1 of the Rights and Duties of WA States resolution.

You'd be wrong. As the author of Rights and Duties has pointed out many times, the WA isn't a NationState, so Article 1 doesn't prevent the WA from dictating to member states in any way, shape or form.

The government of the emperor of Urgench wishes to extend it's congratulations to the Authors of this resolution. We may have our doubts about it's efficacy but hard work and patience seem to have won the day.

yours e.t.c. ,

What change will it bring? I frankly dont see any thing happening by this and also why isnt ne1 objecting to the last line...."co-authored by Wolfish"????????????????? Isnt this a violation of the basic rules??????

Also what does this refer to....

"World Assembly Compliance Commission:Laws have been enacted to bring the Sultanate of Zyphr into compliance with the World Assembly resolution "Neutrality of Nations"."

...at least mention what you intend people to do in response to such messages and if there's nothing to be done then why bother in the first place?

What change will it bring? I frankly dont see any thing happening by thisThis, despite that devilish message you got from the Compliance Commission (formerly the Compliance Ministry), cited below? The changes this brings are simple: 1) In response to this resolution, your nation's defense budget has been slashed, and 2) Your nation now holds the conditional right to declare formal neutrality in any war, and if you are a belligerent party in any conflict, you cannot attack any nation protected by declaration of neutrality.

and also why isnt ne1 objecting to the last line...."co-authored by Wolfish"????????????????? Isnt this a violation of the basic rules??????No, authors are allowed to list one co-author.

Also what does this refer to....

"World Assembly Compliance Commission:Laws have been enacted to bring the Sultanate of Zyphr into compliance with the World Assembly resolution "Neutrality of Nations"."It means the game has changed your stats, which happens automatically after the passage of each resolution.

...at least mention what you intend people to do in response to such messages and if there's nothing to be done then why bother in the first place?There is nothing to be done. The World Assembly has brought your nation into compliance. The only way around it now is repeal or resignation. Or, um, "creative solutions," but I highly doubt you'll find many of note in this resolution's text.

I see there is already a proposal to repeal this resolution. I suggest that all delegates that have voted against it, flock at once to get this repealed. I cannot believe that this non-sense law has been enacted. All it does is make us all vulnerable to non-member nations.

I see there is already a proposal to repeal this resolution. I suggest that all delegates that have voted against it, flock at once to get this repealed. I cannot believe that this non-sense law has been enacted. All it does is make us all vulnerable to non-member nations.Er, how does allowing nations to declare neutrality necessarily make you more vulnerable?

Er, how does allowing nations to declare neutrality necessarily make you more vulnerable?

Nations not apart of the WA, do not have to slash military/defense speanding & may attack without set rules by a world governing body. I think this may be what Morrenstien is thinking.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


Anyways, I firmly disagree with this Resolution


Honorably,
The Federation of Israel Territories

You can always bring more budget to the military if you want so.

The only thing that is permanent is that you cannot be attacked by other WA nation if you declared yourself neutral in the arisen conflict (if you follow the rules for being neutral).

So you cannot attack WA nations who declare themselves (lawfully) neutral and you cannot be attacked by other WA nations when you declare yourself (lawfully) neutral. So that leaves your military activities against your non WA enemies and the WA nations which want to fight you and the other way round.

Should sound fine I think.

Greetings

I am incredibly amazed that the Neutrality of Nations resolution passed with yes votes outnumbering the no votes by 2 to 1, yet we've had the lowest turnouts in WA history: 7419.

I recommend giving it a week to work out and see how it goes. There's always a repeal option later.

Nations not apart of the WA, do not have to slash military/defense speanding & may attack without set rules by a world governing body. I think this may be what Morrenstien is thinking.I didn't ask about the mechanical effects (budget cuts), which can always be reversed by Daily Issues, I'm asking about the force of the actual resolution text. How does non-member nations' ability to ignore WA rules and attack a neutral nation make you vulnerable?

:mad:The People of Amston do not accept the vote. I call for its repeal. Amston will not follow these guidelines because there is arbitrary language within. What gives the WA the right to mettle in my affairs and who I deem an ally? This will hurt trade and make people suffer. My people are outraged at this!

:mad:The People of Amston do not accept the vote.

You don't have a choice, really.

I call for its repeal.

No doubt there will be multiple repeals sent up over this one. You can write one too.

Amston will not follow these guidelines because there is arbitrary language within.

Unless you can come up with a creative way to get around it, again, you really don't have a choice.

What gives the WA the right to mettle in my affairs and who I deem an ally?

You did, when you joined. Hope this clears things up. Have a nice day.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador