NationStates Jolt Archive

Draft 1

Ban and Disarmament of Landmines

DEFINING a landmine as any explosive that
1)is used to kill, injure, or disable persons or vehicles;
2)is activated by pressure or by the proximity of moving objects; and
3)remains active for a length of time likely to exceed the presence of enemy forces;

ACKNOWLEDGING that landmines are commonly used in warfare;

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations have the right to utilize weapons to protect themselves;

NEVERTHELESS argues that landmines kill and injure civilians long after the landmines’ wartime usefulness has ended; and

THEREFORE the following articles curtailing the dangers of landmines shall be enacted:

I) The deployment and manufacture of landmines is prohibited.

II) The possession of undeployed landmines is limited to mines produced before this resolution was enacted, and then only for the purpose of disarming the mines. A reasonable timeline for the disarmament of the mines must be established and adhered to.

III) All nations with known minefields must clear them.
a: Nations will use their own personnel and resources to clear their minefields, except for those designated in clause b;
b: Nations with insufficient personnel, resources, or technology to clear their minefields must request assistance of the WA nations with the appropriate resources.

IV) Nations shall aid other nations in disarming minefields in the following ways. Nations
a: must share information on how to clear minefields;
b: are strongly encouraged to share trained personnel, resources, and technology for clearing landmines with nations that need to clear landmines but lack these resources.

********************************************************

We have a lot of issues to hammer out here. Please, all debate, criticism, and suggestions are welcome!

Two suggestions that have been made to me elsewhere:

1: inclusion of tripwires and "any automatic triggering devices" in part 2 of the definition of landmines;

2: there are some immoral ways of clearing minefields, such as forcing prisoners across. We will have to include something about methodology in minesweeping.

We will include these changes in the next draft. More debate and suggestions, fellow ambassadors?

Perhaps we might suggest that a more specific definition of the term "Landmine" could be used. One which takes greater account of the technical definition of such.

Some time ago we wrote something on this subject, but our efforts were abandoned, partly because many member states put forward convincing and cogent arguments for the legitimate use of these weapons.

The empire has no use for landmines, and we were never convinced of these tactical theories, but making the argument for why these weapons are of poor utility compared to the collateral damage they cause will prove important we imagine.

Circumventing the complaint that poorer states will not be able to afford to clear minefields may also prove useful, as would circumventing the argument that poorer states need mines to defend themselves against economically and millitarily advanced states.

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations have the right to utilize weapons to protect themselves;Rather useless, and will probably incite confusion. The first time I read it, I had thought, "Okay. Nations have the right to use landmines, but we are going to ban them and force nations to begin disarmament." It took a second read-through for me to notice that the clause simply states that nations have the right to use weapons in general.

I) The deployment and manufacture of landmines is prohibited.Minor grammar error. This should read "The deployment and manufacturing of landmines is prohibited".

II) The possession of undeployed landmines is limited to mines produced before this resolution was enacted, and then only for the purpose of disarming the mines. A reasonable timeline for the disarmament of the mines must be established and adhered to.Why not just state that nations must create a reasonable time-line for existing landmines to be disarmed? Also 'undeployed' is not an actual word. Perhaps withheld or inactive?


b: Nations with insufficient personnel, resources, or technology to clear their minefields must request assistance of the WA nations with the appropriate resources.
---------
b: are strongly encouraged to share trained personnel, resources, and technology for clearing landmines with nations that need to clear landmines but lack these resources.What happens when no nation agrees to assist another nation with disarming their landmines? After all, we're only encouraging nations to help, not actually requiring any nation to do so.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Perhaps we might suggest that a more specific definition of the term "Landmine" could be used. One which takes greater account of the technical definition of such.

The reason I chose to word the definition this way is to target all the explosives that are dangerous in the way specified in the resolution. This will cover explosives that are triggered by a tripwire, proximity, or pressure, and need not necessarily be concealed in the ground. In short, the technical definition might not cover all the explosives I would like this resolution to cover. The alternative is to expand the title of the resolution to include the technical titles of these other explosives.

That being said, any suggestions you would have on additions to the definition would be greatly appreciated.

Some time ago we wrote something on this subject, but our efforts were abandoned, partly because many member states put forward convincing and cogent arguments for the legitimate use of these weapons.

The empire has no use for landmines, and we were never convinced of these tactical theories, but making the argument for why these weapons are of poor utility compared to the collateral damage they cause will prove important we imagine.

We will argue that the tactical use of landmines is outweighed by the negative consequences to all persons who will ever live in or around any minefields. Now if nations could guarantee that they would sweep any minefields after the war they are used for is over, it might be an allowable weapon; but a nation that loses will be unlikely to clean up its leftovers and forcing the winning side to disarm the mines deployed against it would be ludicrous.

Circumventing the complaint that poorer states will not be able to afford to clear minefields may also prove useful

We hope to make it possible for poorer states to clear minefields by mandating the sharing of knowledge and training in mine removal, and by strongly encouraging states to share trained personnel, equipment, and financial resources with nations who do not have enough. We will speak more on this subject in response to the honorable Dr. Castro’s remarks below.

Rather useless, and will probably incite confusion. The first time I read it, I had thought, "Okay. Nations have the right to use landmines, but we are going to ban them and force nations to begin disarmament." It took a second read-through for me to notice that the clause simply states that nations have the right to use weapons in general.

Fair enough. We could either simply remove the clause and perhaps slightly alter the preceding statement, or we could modify that clause. Perhaps simply changing it to “and ALTHOUGH nations have the right to utilize weapons to protect themselves;” in which case it sets the reader up for the nevertheless in the next sentence.

Minor grammar error. This should read "The deployment and manufacturing of landmines is prohibited".

Good catch. It will be changed in our next draft.

Why not just state that nations must create a reasonable time-line for existing landmines to be disarmed? Also 'undeployed' is not an actual word. Perhaps withheld or inactive?

I suppose, with the preceding ban on manufacturing and use of landmines, the first clause you cited is unnecessary. That can be removed for the next draft.

If I cannot make up a word, “withheld from use” might be the best wording. “Inactive” could mean “not-deployed” or “not-armed.”

What happens when no nation agrees to assist another nation with disarming their landmines? After all, we're only encouraging nations to help, not actually requiring any nation to do so.

This is a sticky issue, and the one I would like the most input and debate on. Here are the potential options as I see them:

1: Mandate the sharing of knowledge; strongly encourage sharing of trained personnel, financial resources, and equipment. The major drawback, as you pointed out, is that no nation is required to aid another.

2: Mandate the sharing of all the resources listed above. Major drawbacks: who will determine how much, if any, resources a nation must give to another? And what is to prevent a nation from claiming they do not have the resources to clear their minefields, and thereby receive aid they do not need?

3: The old standby: a new committee or organization will be formed. It will, of course, be funded by the WA. It will a: compile and share the knowledge and training for removing minefields; b: aid in the organization of the mine clearing efforts of nations with minefields; and c: determining that a nation lacks the resources to clear mines themselves, funding the nation’s minesweeping.

Option 3 might be the way to go. I was hoping to organize this without resorting to another committee, but it is perhaps the best method for dealing with this problem.

One could always mandate that where poorer states cannot afford to clear mines for themselves, be they mines laid by themselves or by other states, they may draw on w.a. funds to help them do so.


Mapping of minefields could also be carried out by a w.a. committee to assist nations in demining,


Yours ,

Why not just make a law that makes it mandatory to remove all mines once the war is done? I think that's much better than banning mines alltogether.

Why not just make a law that makes it mandatory to remove all mines once the war is done? I think that's much better than banning mines alltogether.
Because they are a pain to find even when you know where to look.

I think No. 3 would be a good option but the committee cannot carry any traits of a world army or police. However it would be a good idea to have the remaining mines mapped for disarmament.

It looks like we are not going to get far without adding a committee or group to organize certain aspects of mine disarmament.

Also, I know there are proponents of the use of landmines out there. Please share your opinions here! I want to address all potential concerns.

One could always mandate that where poorer states cannot afford to clear mines for themselves, be they mines laid by themselves or by other states, they may draw on w.a. funds to help them do so.

Mapping of minefields could also be carried out by a w.a. committee to assist nations in demining

Excellent ideas. Adding "mapping of minefields" to the duties potentially carried out by the committee is a good way to compensate for lack of experienced personnel in some nations. And the drawing on funds would be subject to the approval of the committee, who would be in a position to judge whether the nation truly lacked the financial resources to clear minefields.

Why not just make a law that makes it mandatory to remove all mines once the war is done? I think that's much better than banning mines alltogether.

While this would be a fair option, it has several critical problems. First, who will remove the mines? Say Nation A invades Nation B, and B uses landmines to defend against A. If A wins the war, who cleans up the mines? B may not have any resources or be in any position to remove mines, and A may not annex the territory with the mines in it. So who is responsible for the minefields? And that does not even take into account any kind of war that ends in a draw, with neither side able to claim the territory with the minefields in it; or minefields set as "no-mans land" between nations.

I think No. 3 would be a good option but the committee cannot carry any traits of a world army or police. However it would be a good idea to have the remaining mines mapped for disarmament.

Are there any traits of the committee that we are discussing here that would cross the line into world army/police? We do not want to cross that line. Also, are there any more tasks that perhaps need to be handled by such a committee?

This is an OOC comment, because the Bears don't use landmines and St Edmund (which objected to previous suggestions) is no longer interested in the WA at all.

1/ The St Edmundan argument in the past was to allow the continued deployment of landmines, as a potentially useful way of channeling enemy troops or reinforcing security perimeters, but ONLY in clearly-labelled minefields and with their distribution mapped for future clearance.

2/ The definition currently suggested would seem to cover any explosive munitions (including bombs & bomblets) that could fail to detonate when they initially struck the ground but might then explode if touched. Was this intentional?

3/ The 'former international orgnisation' possessed a demining agency that could usefully (and legally) be re-created.

1/ The St Edmundan argument in the past was to allow the continued deployment of landmines, as a potentially useful way of channeling enemy troops or reinforcing security perimeters, but ONLY in clearly-labelled minefields and with their distribution mapped for future clearance.

Where is the balance? If the mines are too-well marked, their effectiveness diminishes--either enemy forces can avoid a standard deployment of mines, or else the mines must be clustered tightly to prevent any movement by the enemies, thus drastically increasing the number of mines involved. If the mines are not marked well enough, they pose a danger to civilians, especially if the government that is supposed to be responsible for removing mines is too disadvantaged to remove the mines after the war.

2/ The definition currently suggested would seem to cover any explosive munitions (including bombs & bomblets) that could fail to detonate when they initially struck the ground but might then explode if touched. Was this intentional?

This was not intentional, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. I would think that the fact that bombs and bomblets only fall into this category when they fail would indicate that they should not be considered landmines. However, a rewording may be in order.

I think is it about time for a second (and much more coherent) draft. Within the next day or two...

I would like to explore a change in the definition that would allow the use of surface mounted explosive charges, such as claymore devices. While the USoP does not use explosive devices buried in the ground, our special forces and sniper teams will deploy those surface devices in an effort to secure their perimeter.


GEN1 Harlin Majors
USoP WA Military Affairs Liaison

I would like to explore a change in the definition that would allow the use of surface mounted explosive charges, such as claymore devices. While the USoP does not use explosive devices buried in the ground, our special forces and sniper teams will deploy those surface devices in an effort to secure their perimeter.

The proposal was written with the express purpose of including devices such as claymores that, even though they are not buried in the ground, still injure and kill civilians long after conflict is ended. If you can give me convincing reasons why these types of weapons should be excluded from this ban, then perhaps we will change the definition of landmines in the way you describe.

It is true that they unfortunately can hurt civilians however, claymores also protect my soldiers when they are deployed in situations where they are surrounded. While admittedly they are partially concealed they are more visible as opposed to buried landmines, and as such they are easier to find and in most cases render useless.

Truthfully, it has been and will always be the USoP's opinion that is it's not the WA's job to make tactical decisions for it's nations, in any case. If landmines make sense in the situation it is up to the battlefield commander and nations leadership to decide to deploy them or not.

We would support any measure regulating the clean up of the devices, . We would support also a requirement of full disclosure after the fact clause that forces nations to reveal the locations of mined areas when a land is surrendered. An outright ban however is not something we would support.

GEN1 Harlin Majors
USoP WA Military Affairs Liaison

Where is the balance? If the mines are too-well marked, their effectiveness diminishes--either enemy forces can avoid a standard deployment of mines, or else the mines must be clustered tightly to prevent any movement by the enemies, thus drastically increasing the number of mines involved. If the mines are not marked well enough, they pose a danger to civilians, especially if the government that is supposed to be responsible for removing mines is too disadvantaged to remove the mines after the war.
It's the minefield that is marked (typically by warning signs hung at fairly frequent intervals on the enclosing fences), not the indivdiual mines... and if one can lay minefields then one can also lay dummy minefields, allowing an even greater restriction on enemy movement with less expenditure of money & ordnance.

It's the minefield that is marked (typically by warning signs hung at fairly frequent intervals on the enclosing fences), not the indivdiual mines... and if one can lay minefields then one can also lay dummy minefields, allowing an even greater restriction on enemy movement with less expenditure of money & ordnance.

And presumably loss of life also honoured Ambassador,


Yours,

If I might say, I think the third part of the definition is unnecessary. Some occupations might take years. A landmine that remains active for 50 years is not automatically safe just because enemy forces might be present for 60 years.

We feel trafficking in landmines should also be banned. Faced with suddenly useless stockpiles of undeployed mines, many nations might simply sell them off to those not bound by this proposal.

We also feel that deployment by proxy should be prohibited. Several of our neighbours are not in the WA: we could simply pay them to set mines for us.

We would support a reservation to permit the retention of a small number of mines for training purposes. We have a demining agency in our nation, and they need to practice on live mines.

Finally, the protocols for demining will need considerable expansion. The problem with the proposal as it stands is the assumption that mines are set by one nation in their territory. The difficulty comes with mines set in another nation's territory. We feel in such cases, the nation responsible for setting them has at least a partial financial responsibility for their removal.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria