NationStates Jolt Archive

War Dead Repatriation and Protection (temp title only)

Category: Human Rights (tentative)

Strength: Significant (tentative)

Understanding the inability of some nations to retrieve the bodies of war dead from foreign soil, and take them home after an international war or conflict. This could be due to financial restraints, lingering hostilities, unsafe environments, lack of means for transport, or other reasons.

Also noting that deceased bodies of missing military personnel may be found in previously unknown and/or inaccessible areas within foreign borders any number of years after the end of the conflict.

Seeking to ensure repatriation of the remains of deceased foreign military personnel from the nation of conflict to their home nation, at the request of the home nation's government.

Defines foreign military personnel as any person working for and/or within and/or under the armed forces of a nation, and who are not within the borders of their home nation. Foreign military personnel follow a chain of command originating from the legitimate government of their home nation. Nations may include civilian groups of people, including but not limited to, contractors, journalists, medical personnel, and engineers as being military personnel at the time of their deaths, at their own discretion, if these people were contributing their skills and/or labor to that nation's war effort.

Defines war dead as military personnel who lose their lives while serving within the borders of a foreign nation during a war or conflict.

1) Any nation asked by another to allow repatriation of war dead, after a conflict has ended must allow such a request. Any costs associated with the removal of the remains from foreign soil under a repatriation request, must be covered by the nation making said request unless the nations concerned have negotiated a costs agreement. No nation may refuse or deliberately hinder a repatriation request.

2) Nations are encouraged to preserve newly discovered sites containing the remains of deceased foreign military personnel intact, if possible, until representatives of the home nation have been informed of the find, and have had a chance to inspect the site and/or decide on a course of action.

3) Nations that contain the graves of foreign military personnel must take reasonable measures to protect those graves from vandalism and/or desecration, and treat them equally under the existing laws of that nation to the graves of its own war dead. No nation may use, or allow others to use, such graves for propaganda, political, or any other negative purpose.

Strongly urges all nations to take all necessary diplomatic measures to ensure the safe return to home soil of deceased foreign military personnel after the cessation of any war. This will allow closure for all parties, including the family of the deceased and survivors of the conflict.

This is a proposal I was working on before doing my disappearance act from NS. Seem to remember it having a clause about the family of the deceased getting closure ect from the repatriation of their loved ones, but lost the original draft ages ago in a computer crash. Probably should try to replace that.

This proposal is very raw and most definitely needs a lot of fixing. The subject is one I do believe has merit for an international body, and I want to keep it as national sovereignty friendly as I can. Unlike how I am very protective of OSSA (if it ain't broke, don't fix it :tongue:), this one is a project I will appreciate all the help I can get on.

Great start: it is worth noting that the recovery of the war dead would be vital because of the risk of diseases.

This is a proposal I was working on before doing my disappearance act from NS. Seem to remember it having a clause about the family of the deceased getting closure ect from the repatriation of their loved ones, but lost the original draft ages ago in a computer crash. Probably should try to replace that.
Are you talking about this draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518721)? It has a final clause along those lines.

Yes, that is it. Thank you.

I got the draft above from that thread but must have missed the last bit in the copy/paste. It is added now.

OOC: Glad to see that this is being revived, Waterana. Didn't we work on this somewhere else? Reclamation maybe?

...risk of diseases.
Um, what?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Just my thought: The reclamation and recovery of the war dead sometimes happen for health and safety reasons alongside the reasons such as returning them to the family or dignity.

I have four comments.

The first was stated by my senior, Secretary Madison, during this proposal's original drafting, and that is that there should be, at the very least, an encouragement for nations to actively assist in or themselves undertake the finding of war dead (sites). If a war's been fought relatively recently between Astan and Bstan, Astan is probably not going to allow Bstani nationals to wander around its countryside looking for graves. As such, it's only reasonable for Astan to make at least a token effort to find Bstani graves themselves.

The second is that, while I think the blatherings of the representative of Charlotte Ryberg are of little consequence here, they've made me realize there's a couple of occasions where a repatriation might be legitimately refused. The first is where repatriation would be a health risk: for example, the soldier died from a bio agent, or, perhaps more commonly, the soldier died in a city with already overstretched morgue capacities and the authorities have taken to burning bodies to avoid a cholera outbreak.

The third may be too minor to be concerned with, but here goes: the sending nation should be required to inform the receiving nation in advance of the condition of the body. I get the impression this draft is geared towards more towards older bodies that would have decomposed. But in the case of recent casualties, they might have distressing injuries, and the receiving nation should be told this so they can arrange counselling for the families.

The fourth is with the eminently sensible clause 3. Of course I agree that graves shouldn't be used for 'negative' purposes. But what about a mixed grave site? For example, a battlefield where so many soldiers died that they cannot all be found and relocated. OOC: I'm thinking here particularly of WWI-era battlefields in France and Belgium.

In such cases, it might be entirely reasonable to have a remembrance ceremony there, which is I suppose a 'propaganda' act.

War Dead Repatriation and Protection (temp title only)

Category: Human Rights (tentative)

Strength: Significant (tentative)

Understanding the inability of some nations to retrieve the bodies of war dead from foreign soil, and take them home after an international war or conflict. This could be due to financial restraints, lingering hostilities, unsafe environments, sudden withdrawal of forces, lack of means for transport, or other reasons.

Also noting the deceased bodies of missing military personnel may be found in previously unknown and/or inaccessible areas within foreign borders any number of years after the end of the conflict.

Defines foreign military personnel as any person working for and/or within and/or under the armed forces of a nation, and who are not within the borders of their home nation. Foreign military personnel follow a chain of command originating from the legitimate government of their home nation. Nations may include civilian groups of people, including but not limited to, contractors, journalists, medical personnel, and engineers as being military personnel at the time of their deaths, at their own discretion, if these people were contributing their skills and/or labor to that nation's war effort.

Defines war dead as military personnel who lose their lives while serving within the borders of a foreign nation during a war or conflict.

1) Any nation asked by another to allow repatriation of war dead, after a conflict has ended must allow such a request. Any costs associated with the removal of the remains from foreign soil under a repatriation request, must be covered by the nation making said request unless the nations concerned have negotiated a costs agreement. No nation may refuse or deliberately hinder a repatriation request.

2) Nations are encouraged to preserve newly discovered sites containing the remains of deceased foreign military personnel intact, if possible, until representatives of the home nation have been informed of the find, and have had a chance to inspect the site and/or decide on a course of action. However;

2a) No nation is required to allow foreign officials to enter its territory for the purposes of war dead repatriation. A neutral third party facilitator acceptable to both sides is an alternative, as is delivery of the remains to a pre arranged agreed to location on the border or elsewhere.

3) Nations that contain the graves of foreign military personnel, whether permanent or temporary, must take reasonable measures to protect those graves from vandalism and/or desecration, and treat them equally under the existing laws of that nation to the graves of its own war dead. No nation may use, or allow others to use, such graves for propaganda, politics, or other negative purpose.

Strongly urges all nations to take all necessary diplomatic measures to ensure the safe return to home soil of deceased foreign military personnel after the cessation of any war. This will allow closure for all parties, including the family of the deceased and survivors of the conflict.


Have done some tinkering. Added clause 2a as I could forsee objections on the grounds of the proposal requiring nations to allow the entry of foreign nationals, and agree that is not acceptable. Also have an idea of adding the remains must be treated with respect during exhumation and handling by the foreign nation, and also to cover the foreign nation not only allowing, but requiring the home nation to do the work themselves.

New Leicestershire, yes I think there was a thread on Reclamation. Will have to go see when I get the chance.

Charlotte Ryberg I do see where you are coming from. Not sure health concerns would be something that a repatriation proposal would need to cover. This is more concerned with just making sure they get returned. If you can expand more on your line of thinking, I can have a better idea if health concerns would suit this proposal or not. Won't dismiss it out of hand until I know.

Not returning the corpses serves as a warning toward the country that sends its men to war and loses. I am strictly against this proposal, as if someone is foolish enough to wage war on a more powerful foe, the victor may do whatever they want to the dead.

OOC: It seems likely that some nations would (at least in major wars) bury at least some of their war-dead in cemeteries in the lands where those fell, and then of course there's the case of sunken ships (with bodies still on board) sometimes being considered as 'war graves' too... Could you please also include a clause requiring a reasonable level of respect for such sites?

A question for my esteemed colleague, in the event of forigen fighters entombed during the conflict does the final clause require the return of the corpses, or would our establishing security for them be enough? In other words if we have buried them during the conflict do they need to be exhumed?

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP WA Ambassador

Not returning the corpses serves as a warning toward the country that sends its men to war and loses. I am strictly against this proposal, as if someone is foolish enough to wage war on a more powerful foe, the victor may do whatever they want to the dead.

The Dominion of The Deadly Irish agrees with the Honourable Representative of Voltaggia.


Tomás Ó Maoleagáin
Ambassador
Dominion of The Deadly Irish

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota agrees with the honorable representatives of Voltaggia and The Deadly Irish. We make a point to avoid initiating wars of aggression whenever possible, and assume that in any war between ourselves and any foreign nation, most fighting will be on our territory. Why should we be obligated to render any service to an aggressor? If they want their war dead back so badly, they're more than free to come back and take them by force, or better yet, not start wars in the first place, the idiots.

Wataru Nishii
Ambassador
The Grand Holy Empire of Imota

I have four comments.

The first was stated by my senior, Secretary Madison, during this proposal's original drafting, and that is that there should be, at the very least, an encouragement for nations to actively assist in or themselves undertake the finding of war dead (sites). If a war's been fought relatively recently between Astan and Bstan, Astan is probably not going to allow Bstani nationals to wander around its countryside looking for graves. As such, it's only reasonable for Astan to make at least a token effort to find Bstani graves themselves.
Quite right. That is sort of covered in clause 2a, which was posted only a couple of minutes after you posted this. I can expand on that if what I've put there isn't enough.

The second is that, while I think the blatherings of the representative of Charlotte Ryberg are of little consequence here, they've made me realize there's a couple of occasions where a repatriation might be legitimately refused. The first is where repatriation would be a health risk: for example, the soldier died from a bio agent, or, perhaps more commonly, the soldier died in a city with already overstretched morgue capacities and the authorities have taken to burning bodies to avoid a cholera outbreak.
and
The third may be too minor to be concerned with, but here goes: the sending nation should be required to inform the receiving nation in advance of the condition of the body. I get the impression this draft is geared towards more towards older bodies that would have decomposed. But in the case of recent casualties, they might have distressing injuries, and the receiving nation should be told this so they can arrange counselling for the families.
Ok, I'll look at adding something to cover bodies that can't be returned for genuine practical reasons, or that need to be returned under special conditions.

The fourth is with the eminently sensible clause 3. Of course I agree that graves shouldn't be used for 'negative' purposes. But what about a mixed grave site? For example, a battlefield where so many soldiers died that they cannot all be found and relocated. OOC: I'm thinking here particularly of WWI-era battlefields in France and Belgium.

In such cases, it might be entirely reasonable to have a remembrance ceremony there, which is I suppose a 'propaganda' act.
I don't see remembrance ceremonies as propaganda, and the proposal does say 'negative purposes' which that kind of affair certainly isn't. Will look at cleaning that up and making it clearer.

OOC: It seems likely that some nations would (at least in major wars) bury at least some of their war-dead in cemeteries in the lands where those fell, and then of course there's the case of sunken ships (with bodies still on board) sometimes being considered as 'war graves' too... Could you please also include a clause requiring a reasonable level of respect for such sites?
and
A question for my esteemed colleague, in the event of forigen fighters entombed during the conflict does the final clause require the return of the corpses, or would our establishing security for them be enough? In other words if we have buried them during the conflict do they need to be exhumed?

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP WA Ambassador

Both these questions cover the same sort of thing, and yes, mutual agreement to allow war dead to stay on foreign soil needs to be covered, as does protection of sunk ships ect. Will look at adding something to that effect. The whole proposal does require return if the home government asks for it, but negotiation to leave them where they lie is acceptable too. Again, will look to add something to that effect.

Thank you everyone. Certainly have a lot to think about and get into the proposal. I appreciate the help. Some things I didn't think of coming up.

Thank you everyone. Certainly have a lot to think about and get into the proposal. I appreciate the help. Some things I didn't think of coming up.

We look forward to further drafts. We offer any help you may require.

We view all fallen soldiers as patriots no matter the outcome of the conflict and believe that all families deserve closure. We are soldiers, not barbarians.

~NSY

I think you need to have a clause that takes into account the moving of the fallen from informal graves to formal cemetries without leaving the country they died in (OoC: Which is the British tradition: "If I should die, think only this of me:/That there's some corner of a foreign field/That is forever England")

Not returning the corpses serves as a warning toward the country that sends its men to war and loses. I am strictly against this proposal, as if someone is foolish enough to wage war on a more powerful foe, the victor may do whatever they want to the dead.

The Dominion of The Deadly Irish agrees with the Honourable Representative of Voltaggia.


Tomás Ó Maoleagáin
Ambassador
Dominion of The Deadly Irish

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota agrees with the honorable representatives of Voltaggia and The Deadly Irish. We make a point to avoid initiating wars of aggression whenever possible, and assume that in any war between ourselves and any foreign nation, most fighting will be on our territory. Why should we be obligated to render any service to an aggressor? If they want their war dead back so badly, they're more than free to come back and take them by force, or better yet, not start wars in the first place, the idiots.

Wataru Nishii
Ambassador
The Grand Holy Empire of Imota


Wow, three chowderheads for the price of one. Somebody must have been turning over some damp rocks around these parts.:eek:

I think this is a good idea, Waterana. I'm just wondering, would DNA testing of the remains, to make positive ID fall under clause 1, or should there be an additional clause? Sometimes, due to the condition of the remains, DNA might be the only way to confirm positive identification, and give closure to the families.
Exceslior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Wow, three chowderheads for the price of one. Somebody must have been turning over some damp rocks around these parts.:eek:

I think this is a good idea, Waterana. I'm just wondering, would DNA testing of the remains, to make positive ID fall under clause 1, or should there be an additional clause? Sometimes, due to the condition of the remains, DNA might be the only way to confirm positive identification, and give closure to the families.
Exceslior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

And another idiot joins the fray.

But I disgress. What is so chowderheaded about opposing a proposal that does nothing but hurt one's own nation? As we are not in the habit of invading our neighbors on a whim, we find it highly unlikely that our soldiers will die on territory not controlled by our forces. We also consider the recovery of war dead to be the responsibility of the army (or nation) that deployed them. If they fail to recover their personnel, that is their problem, not ours. Likewise, if we fail to recover our soldiers, we acknowledge that that is our problem, and no one elses.

Now, do you see our objection? According to our national policy, any war that we fight will more likely than not take place on our own soil and water, meaning that our enemies are the aggressors. At the conflict's conclusion, assuming that we have successfully fought them off, there will be large numbers of Imotan and enemy war dead on soil controlled by our forces. It is the enemy's fault (and not ours) that they have invaded, and it is the enemy's fault (and not ours) that they have failed to recover their war dead. Under the provisions of this proposal, we would be forced to allow representatives of an enemy aggressor onto our territory to essentially alleviate the losses they have suffered, while we, who spurn such an aggressive policy, lose out. That is what we find so offensive about this measure. It alleviates the losses suffered by the loser and reduces the cost of engaging in war, which we fear is hardly a step in favor of peace.

Reaffirming our opposition,

Wataru Nishii, Representative to the World Assembly for the Grand Holy Empire of Imota

Because a soldier is a soldier - one who follows orders, not one who gives them. They do not decide to go to war, nor choose to die. So why punish them and their families? Why not give them the respect they deserve. Furthermore, your post shews an underlying lack of knowledge about even defensive matters - even if you are the one attacked by a neighbour, you will have to attempt to invade that neighbours territory. You can't just sit on the border and repel, unless you enjoy losing wars. In which case, I know a few countries that could do with some extra room which Imota seems happy to provide...

"Umm, but what if they've been eaten? Not that we would do that, of course not, but I just thought I'd ask -- out of general curiosity -- while the boss is off in the Bar..."


Urra o HighPeaks,
Apprentice Voice,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

"Umm, but what if they've been eaten? Not that we would do that, of course not, but I just thought I'd ask -- out of general curiosity -- while the boss is off in the Bar..."


Urra o HighPeaks,
Apprentice Voice,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

:rolleyes:
Unless you eat bones and all, there will be some remains.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

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

We are unsure about the applicability or wisdom of this resolution in the context of our nation's culture. Kawaiians do not bury our dead. Instead, we take them to the high places and offer them to the scavengers of the air, returning them to the natural cycle that is a manifestation of the Cute One.

Since burial of remains is an unnatural interruption of that cycle and a defilement of the soil, any foreigners perishing on Kawaiian-administered territory would receive the same honors in death as a Kawaiian. We are concerned this resolution would interfere with that custom.

Wow, three chowderheads for the price of one. Somebody must have been turning over some damp rocks around these parts.:eek:

I think this is a good idea, Waterana. I'm just wondering, would DNA testing of the remains, to make positive ID fall under clause 1, or should there be an additional clause? Sometimes, due to the condition of the remains, DNA might be the only way to confirm positive identification, and give closure to the families.
Exceslior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

We have only expressed our opinion. Calling someone a chowderhead for having a different opinion than you is a great foreign policy. I have explained why my nation is against this propostition, while YOU have not.

Because a soldier is a soldier - one who follows orders, not one who gives them. They do not decide to go to war, nor choose to die. So why punish them and their families? Why not give them the respect they deserve. Furthermore, your post shews an underlying lack of knowledge about even defensive matters - even if you are the one attacked by a neighbour, you will have to attempt to invade that neighbours territory. You can't just sit on the border and repel, unless you enjoy losing wars. In which case, I know a few countries that could do with some extra room which Imota seems happy to provide...

There is a risk you take when you join the army. Also, the families of the war dead will blame the government, causing political instability in the country, forcing a government that is less likely to wage wars. That is a win-win situation.

By the way, YOU also show lack of knowledge. Depending on your nation's borders, you can hold of opponent indefinately (nation of Voltagga has a geographical border - it is located in a huge crater, about 15000 square kilometers, meaning that we can throw out practically anything).

Because a soldier is a soldier - one who follows orders, not one who gives them. They do not decide to go to war, nor choose to die. So why punish them and their families? Why not give them the respect they deserve. Furthermore, your post shews an underlying lack of knowledge about even defensive matters - even if you are the one attacked by a neighbour, you will have to attempt to invade that neighbours territory. You can't just sit on the border and repel, unless you enjoy losing wars. In which case, I know a few countries that could do with some extra room which Imota seems happy to provide...

Under the circumstances, I have advised my government that a massive rearmament program and a substantial change in foreign policy would be prudent.

And why punish their families? To prevent future wars, of course. Any basic economics course will teach that changing costs will affect decision making. If the true cost of war is hidden from a population, they will be less reluctant to go to war. When the population is forced to bear the true costs of war, perhaps they will be motivated to select better leaders and better policies. Maybe they'll become motivated to actually take part in government themselves......

War is brutal and disgusting. That is why we hate it, and that is why we oppose measures that lessen its costs on potential enemies.

Wataru Nishii, Representative to the World Assembly for the Grand Holy Empire of Imota

So, what, having rows upon rows of corsses, visible to all citizens, in the country itself doesn't show the cost of war? Surely, you know, having the dead on display would, by your logic, be a better deterrent?

I'm sure a massive re-armement effeort will help; why would anyone join an army to fight for a government that has no respect for their profession, and that will, apparently, do very little but sit in barracks? Or do you just have good water skiing facilities?

Furthermore, I can't help but think that your generals, admirals, and air marshals must be gloriously incompetent, if they have no military experience...

So, what, having rows upon rows of corsses, visible to all citizens, in the country itself doesn't show the cost of war? Surely, you know, having the dead on display would, by your logic, be a better deterrent?

Having a corpse to bury provides closure. By denying this to our enemies, we increase the psychological cost of war on the collective psyche of the enemy. We use the mutilated, violated corpses of their sons and daughters to taunt them, to humiliate them, and to drown them in despair and hopelessness, killing their will to fight. Such tactics are far more effective than a row of crosses on a green field at breaking the enemy, since we send the message that we, not they, are in control.

I'm sure a massive re-armement effeort will help; why would anyone join an army to fight for a government that has no respect for their profession, and that will, apparently, do very little but sit in barracks? Or do you just have good water skiing facilities?

To heavily butcher Goering: All that is needed to compel a nation to do the bidding of its leaders is to name a threat and denounce the pacifists as traitors.

Furthermore, I can't help but think that your generals, admirals, and air marshals must be gloriously incompetent, if they have no military experience...

...which is where the change in foreign policy comes in. Besides, there IS an existing military infrastructure....

...but I digress yet again. I've already outlined my arguments against the proposal, and I'll say this again: I disagree.

Having a corpse to bury provides closure. By denying this to our enemies, we increase the psychological cost of war on the collective psyche of the enemy. We use the mutilated, violated corpses of their sons and daughters to taunt them, to humiliate them, and to drown them in despair and hopelessness, killing their will to fight. Such tactics are far more effective than a row of crosses on a green field at breaking the enemy, since we send the message that we, not they, are in control

Wow, in my book nothing would want to make an upstanding man want to fight even more, especially against an enemy with such little compuncture. Do you rape the wives whilst your at it?



To heavily butcher Goering: All that is needed to compel a nation to do the bidding of its leaders is to name a threat and denounce the pacifists as traitors.

To quote Bugs Bunny: You know, I bet we shoulda turned left at Albuquerque...

I can quote people smarter then you too!

[/QUOTE]

Wow, in my book nothing would want to make an upstanding man want to fight even more, especially against an enemy with such little compuncture. Do you rape the wives whilst your at it?


That depends on the amount of hate for the enemy, the reason for war and whether you're attacking or defending. If you're on attacking side, and the war is all about getting those two rich provinces that have NEVER been under your nations's control, then mutilated corpse-hanging demoralizes. If you're defending those two rich provinces which are an essential part of your nation, then the enemy who's hanging your corpses is in for one hell of a fight.

Not returning corpses is not an agressive action - it's sort of holding hostages, in order to prevent further attacks. It's a double edged sword, though - the enemy might start a war over them.

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

We are unsure about the applicability or wisdom of this resolution in the context of our nation's culture. Kawaiians do not bury our dead. Instead, we take them to the high places and offer them to the scavengers of the air, returning them to the natural cycle that is a manifestation of the Cute One.

Since burial of remains is an unnatural interruption of that cycle and a defilement of the soil, any foreigners perishing on Kawaiian-administered territory would receive the same honors in death as a Kawaiian. We are concerned this resolution would interfere with that custom.

Actually no, it wouldn't. Have thought about this very thing, and do intend to cover cases of remains not able to be returned due to unresolvable problems, customs, or sheer inability due to the lack of a body. Will require the return of any personal effects, DNA samples, and copies of records (name if known, place of death, cause of death ect) instead. That sort of thing.

I was going to ignore the few declaring 'we ain't sending them back, tough luck' but seems I'd better address this. If this proposal passes, you won't have a choice, simple. It will also ensure the return of your own war dead, and only the most blind would assume not one of their soldiers will ever die on enemy soil. Holding bodies back from their families out of spite or as some disgusting form of blackmail is one of the things this proposal seeks to prevent. The families of the war dead won't blame their government, they will blame yours, and growing hatred will be the only result.

I was going to ignore the few declaring 'we ain't sending them back, tough luck' but seems I'd better address this. If this proposal passes, you won't have a choice, simple. It will also ensure the return of your own war dead, and only the most blind would assume not one of their soldiers will ever die on enemy soil.

Quite right; I'd add there also needs to be some form of article allowing foreign war cemteries on foreign soil, and ensuring respectful treatment thereof

Holding bodies back from their families out of spite or as some disgusting form of blackmail is one of the things this proposal seeks to prevent. The families of the war dead won't blame their government, they will blame yours, and growing hatred will be the only result.

Quite right

Ok, next version.

War Dead Repatriation and Protection (temp title only)

Category: Human Rights (tentative)

Strength: Significant (tentative)

Understanding the inability of some nations to retrieve the bodies of war dead from foreign soil, and take them home after an international war or conflict. This could be due to financial restraints, lingering hostilities, unsafe environments, sudden withdrawal of forces, lack of means for transport, or other reasons.

Also noting the deceased bodies of missing military personnel may be found in previously unknown and/or inaccessible areas within foreign borders any number of years after the end of the conflict.

Defines foreign military personnel as any person working for and/or within and/or under the armed forces of a nation, and who are not within the borders of their home nation. Foreign military personnel follow a chain of command originating from the legitimate government of their home nation. Nations may include civilian groups of people, including but not limited to, contractors, journalists, medical personnel, and engineers as being military personnel at the time of their deaths, at their own discretion, if these people were contributing their skills or labor to that nation's war effort.

Defines war dead as military personnel who lose their lives while serving within the borders of a foreign nation during a war or conflict.

1) Any nation asked by another to allow repatriation of war dead, after a conflict has ended must permit such a request. Any costs associated with the removal of the remains from foreign soil under a repatriation request, must be covered by the nation making said request unless the nations concerned have negotiated a costs agreement. No nation may refuse or deliberately hinder a repatriation request.

2) Nations are encouraged to preserve newly discovered sites containing the remains of deceased foreign military personnel intact, if possible, until representatives of the home nation have been informed of the find, and have had a chance to inspect the site and/or decide on a course of action. However;

2a) No nation is required to allow foreign officials to enter its territory for the purposes of war dead repatriation. A neutral third party facilitator acceptable to both sides is an alternative, as is delivery of the remains to a pre arranged agreed to location on the border or elsewhere. Any recovered personal effects must accompany the deceased.

2b) In the event deceased remains are not able to be returned for reasons including, but not limited to, burial customs and culture, necessity of immediate disposal of the remains in a mass grave or by cremation due to health risks, or inability of retrieval, all nations must take measures to ensure the return of any personal effects, forms of identity such as dogtags, DNA samples, and copies of any pertinent records in its possession instead.

3) Nations that contain the graves of foreign military personnel, whether permanent or temporary, must take reasonable measures to protect those graves from vandalism and/or desecration, and treat them equally under the existing laws of that nation to the graves of its own war dead. This includes sites of sunken naval vessels and mass graves. No nation may use, or allow others to use, such graves for propaganda, politics, or other negative purpose.

Strongly urges all nations to take all necessary diplomatic measures to ensure the safe return to home soil of deceased foreign military personnel after the cessation of any war. This will allow closure for all parties, including the family of the deceased and survivors of the conflict.


It is late here, and I'm tired, so if I've missed anything that should have been added, please yell at me, and it will go into the next draft. Did add something to hopefully calm the The Eternal Kawaii's worries, and also added the protection of sunken ship sites. Also covered the inability of return of remains, but added the return of personal effects in that case.

Also, although not neccessary, I'd add:

Nations may include civilian groups of people, including but not limited to, contractors, journalists, medical personnel, merchant mariners, and engineers as being military personnel at the time of their deaths,

As it's probably one of the most common forms of civilians lost in wartime. Might be worth adding paramilitaries, mercenaries, and the like, as they may not be covered. Similarly, can I suggest changing "sunken naval vessels" to "vessels sunk during war or conflict in which lives were lost", to include merchant shipping lost, and exclude ships that aren't really graves?

In that case, our soldiers will be instructed to blow up every single body of an enemy soldier during the battle with a charge our scientist have already begun developing. Also, the nations that would request of us to return their dead bodies will have to pay a certain percentage (about 5 to 10) of their GDP, to cover the costs.

In that case, our soldiers will be instructed to blow up every single body of an enemy soldier during the battle with a charge our scientist have already begun developing.
Setting aside the sheer barbarity of desecrating war dead....

You intend to have your troops blow up the bodies of already dead enemy soldiers while the battle still rages around them? And how much time and effort do you suppose that will take? Don't you think your soldiers would have more pressing matters on their minds at that time, like engaging the enemy forces that are still alive?

Also, the nations that would request of us to return their dead bodies will have to pay a certain percentage (about 5 to 10) of their GDP, to cover the costs.

No they won't.

1) Any nation asked by another to allow repatriation of war dead, after a conflict has ended must permit such a request. Any costs associated with the removal of the remains from foreign soil under a repatriation request, must be covered by the nation making said request unless the nations concerned have negotiated a costs agreement. No nation may refuse or deliberately hinder a repatriation request.

The nation making the request will be required to cover the costs of removal, but charging 5-10% of GDP would, in my opinion, be "deliberately hindering".

I would encourage the ambassador from Waterana to consider adding language to prevent exorbitant charges being set as a condition for honouring repatriation requests.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Wait. That means I have to return the corpses to another nation, with them setting the price? They started the war, and yet they dictate the price? Now, where is the open-minded liberal logic you'd like to apply to this proposition?

Also, scrap the explosive charge. We'll just use exploding bullets that completely destroy the body.

Wait. That means I have to return the corpses to another nation, with them setting the price?
There should probably be some language addressing the determination of costs, to ensure that they are customary and reasonable. Otherwise nations such as yours will try to profit from the return of war dead.

They started the war, and yet they dictate the price? Now, where is the open-minded liberal logic you'd like to apply to this proposition?
Assigning blame for who started the war is irrelevant. This is about returning war dead to their homes after the war has ended.

Also, scrap the explosive charge. We'll just use exploding bullets that completely destroy the body.
Ah yes, the magic exploding bullets that completely destroy human bodies. What if your enemy uses the magic exploding bullet deflecting armour?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Ah yes, the magic exploding bullets that completely destroy human bodies. What if your enemy uses the magic exploding bullet deflecting armour?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

How in the blue hell did you find out that we're developing that?!

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

How in the blue hell did you find out that we're developing that?!

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Well it stands to reason that if there were magic exploding bullets then there would be magic exploding bullet deflecting armour. Figures that you would be the ones developing it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

2b) In the event deceased remains are not able to be returned for reasons including, but not limited to, burial customs and culture, necessity of immediate disposal of the remains in a mass grave or by cremation due to health risks, or inability of retrieval, all nations must take measures to ensure the return of any personal effects, forms of identity such as dogtags, DNA samples, and copies of any pertinent records in its possession instead.

We see that this draft shows proper consideration for Kawaiian furnerary customs, so we withdraw our earlier objection. Thank you.

We'll just use exploding bullets that completely destroy the body.
If you mean dum-dums, use of them would probably be considered a war crime.

Actually, that'd be a good idea for a proposal.

*snip*

Reaffirming our opposition,

Wataru Nishii, Representative to the World Assembly for the Grand Holy Empire of Imota

The key words in this assertation are
assuming that we have successfully fought them off

Hasn't it occurred to your government yet that if you fail to completely repel an attacker, and therefore lose some of your territory to them, this proposal would let you require the repatriation of your own war-dead to the lands that you still control for proper treatment?

Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


(*lightly cuffs Urra o HighPeaks on the side of her head...*)

If you mean dum-dums, use of them would probably be considered a war crime.

Actually, that'd be a good idea for a proposal.
Dum-dums aren't exploding bullets, they merely shatter inside on impact, causing the force to be dispursed in the body, and causing no exit wounds, and fucking up your internal organs.

(OoC: There use in war, is prohibited, as are soft lead bullets, which have the same effect. Law enforcement may use them, as they do cause instanteous death, which is often likely to be needed in police situation, e.g. in cases of sniping a chap wearing a bomb belt. You don't want him to be able to flick the switch)

Is it me who has noticed that those in opposition are those most likely to loose wars? One refuse to invade foreign territory (which is so strategically stupid, even for a defensive nation, that I can't even begin to describe it), the other wishes to expend it's effort destroying corpses, or wasting time and effort on expensive bullets that kill people outright and destroy the remains (which is also stupid - a wounded man is more hassel for your enemies then a dead one)

Well it stands to reason that if there were magic exploding bullets then there would be magic exploding bullet deflecting armour. Figures that you would be the ones developing it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’

Here. I can be a smartass too if I want.

Here. I can be a smartass too if I want.


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/shirow/dogbert.gif
Back to your damp rock!

We have only expressed our opinion. Calling someone a chowderhead for having a different opinion than you is a great foreign policy. I have explained why my nation is against this propostition, while YOU have not.

Since you appear to be new here, I'll let you in on a little secret, old boy. And for your benefit, I'll try to talk real slow.:tongue:
The Palentine really doesn't give a flying rip about making our foreign policy palatable to all. Its a reason I reside in the Anatarctic Oasis. Plus my patented Barbaric Militant Machismo(TM), is part of my charm.:tongue: Just ask most of the good delegates here in the Festering snakepit....err WA General Assembly.
As to your second comment. The esteemed delegate from Cobdenia has adaquately stated our beliefs. To add on, or try to improve on the statements, would be foolish and redundant.

@Waterana:

Thanks ma'am. Clause 2b answered my question. You can count on the Palentine's support if this comes up for vote.

exceslior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
New and inproved with 50% more unwholesomeness, and Barbaric Millitant Machismo(TM) than before.

Those of you whose nations would show disrespect to the dead, and even view them as hostages, or expect a nation to pay to have them returned, have no honor. Your stance is worthy of nothing but contempt, and your ancestors should be ashamed for bearing such pathetic and ignoble offspring into this world.

The Trilateral Federation will support this if and when it comes to vote.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

Here. I can be a smartass too if I want.
Indeed.

If you mean dum-dums, use of them would probably be considered a war crime.

Dum-dums aren't exploding bullets, they merely shatter inside on impact, causing the force to be dispursed in the body, and causing no exit wounds, and fucking up your internal organs.
I don't think he was talking about dum-dums or hollow points or anything like that. He had some fanciful notion of explosive bullets that would completely destroy the body leaving no remains to return.