NationStates Jolt Archive

Here be all honourable members of the World Assembly! Since taking over Ms. Berlin as ambassador to the mind of Charlotte Ryberg, I am willing to conduct a total review of "Neutrality of Nations" and submit it as a replacement (probably with a different title).

The esteemed ambassadors to Aundotutunagir has argued that there is no mechanism, or procedures in place to determine how the World Assembly would be convinced that attacking a neutral nation will actually improve world peace. He also argues that the authorization could be granted by a simple majority, or even acclamation or voice vote.

Here is the new draft in progress; not all is completed yet, but it's in progress:

The World Assembly,

DESIRING to:
- Implement the rights and duties of neutral powers in case of war;
- Implement the regulations on the position of the belligerents taking refuge in neutral states;
- Define the meaning of the term “neutral”.

Hereby enacts the following:

Definitions:
a) A “neutral power” is a country that takes no side in a war, or is resistant to military alliances to preserve neutrality in an event of war;
b) A “belligerent power” is a country that is involved in one or many wars.

Article 1:
1. All territories of neutral powers (land air and sea) are inviolable.
2. Belligerent powers will refrain from moving their armed forces of convoys of any war supplies across any territory of a neutral power.
3. Further to section 2, belligerent powers will not:
a) Erect on the territory of a neutral power any apparatus for the purpose of communication with belligerent forces;
b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power.
4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral power to assist belligerent powers.

Article 2:
1. A neutral power must not allow any of the acts as described in Article 1 to occur in their territory.
2. A neutral power is not required to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts were committed in their territory.

Article 3:
– A neutral power resisting even by force any attempt to violate its neutrality is not regarded as a hostile act...

Article 4:
1. The acts of individuals or private industries do not challenge the neutrality of the said power.
2. A neutral power is not required to restrict or forbid on behalf of one or many belligerent powers:
a) The export or transport of anything that may be of use to an armed force;
b) The use of telecommunications systems belonging to companies or individuals.
3. If any measure of restriction or prohibition be undertaken by a neutral power in regards to the matters as stated in Article 4.2, it must be impartially applied to all belligerents. Individuals and private industries of the neutral power must observe such restriction.

Article 5:
1. A citizens of a neutral power are considered as neutrals.
2. A neutral cannot avail himself of neutrality if it commits acts in either way of a belligerent, regardless of position or belief. A neutral cannot be more severely treated by a belligerent power as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a citizen of that belligerent power could be for the same act.

Article 6:
1. A country that carries out genocide or similar crimes against humanity (such as ethnic cleansing) cannot be considered a neutral power.

(The bit about humanitarian aid to come)



I see that this issue of neutrality is not the most stable, but first of all:

Do the ambassadors gathered here believe that belligerent nations should not invade neutral nations, full stop?

Additionally I can see areas that may be able to be shortened (in blue). Expect big changes under Sarah Harper.

Yours etc,

Do the ambassadors gathered here believe that belligerent nations should not invade neutral nations, full stop?
I believe there should be more attention given to the details of how and why the World Assembly would go about authorizing such an attack. For instance, who would authorize the attack? The General Assembly? How would it go about calling a vote on the matter?

I think rather than having the World Assembly authorizing attacks, it would be better to outline the conditions under which a nation may maintain its neutral status. Then if any of those conditions are broken, the nation may be attacked without specific authorization from the World Assembly. There really is no mechanism in place by which the WA can judge individual situations and say "yes, attack them" or "no, you can't attack them".

Also, while you're revising the resolution, this:
A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality.
needs to be changed to this:
A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that the neutral nation observes obligations to justify its neutrality.

I believe there should be more attention given to the details of how and why the World Assembly would go about authorizing such an attack. For instance, who would authorize the attack? The General Assembly? How would it go about calling a vote on the matter?

I think rather than having the World Assembly authorizing attacks, it would be better to outline the conditions under which a nation may maintain its neutral status. Then if any of those conditions are broken, the nation may be attacked without specific authorization from the World Assembly. There really is no mechanism in place by which the WA can judge individual situations and say "yes, attack them" or "no, you can't attack them".

Hiriaurtung Arororugul, I observe that there needs to be a way to address this without inducing metagaming. How about, if we added an additional condition in which Neutral nations must not be engaged in another war? Again, the position of this phrase is yet to be numbered as this resolution is going through a overhaul.

Also, while you're revising the resolution, this... needs to be changed to this...

Hiriaurtung Arororugul, I have found a lot of bits I can take out, and I will certainly make way for that. They will be marked in blue in the same place where I marked the culprit.

Im concerned with the wording with regards to qualification for neutrality:

- It is a right of any Member Nation that is uninvolved in a said war to make a formal claim of Neutrality (as long as they haven't been involved in another war)

This section requires elaboration, obviously it cant mean if a country has been involved in a war full stop.

Im concerned with the wording with regards to qualification for neutrality... This section requires elaboration, obviously it cant mean if a country has been involved in a war full stop.
Hello Sir Marcus Darcourt. At the moment I am scribbling notes in blue around the original text to highlight what bits that might require improvement. Those in red are candidates to be taken out. I will indicate this in the first letter in this debate. I have two theories which will relive the WA of the hassle of deciding whether belligerent states can or cannot invade neutral states "for the benefit of world peace":

1. This theory would be to refine this draft as if each current war is individual. Therefore, the basic requirement for neutrality would be that the said state must not be involved the said war (active or supporting).

2. Another idea would be to make neutral states neutral from all wars. The basic requirement for neutrality would then be that the said state must not be involved the said war. This would then mean that neutral states cannot deal with the armed forces of any belligerent nations. This is because that if Nation A is involved in war 1 whilst neutral from war 2 it would defeat the principle of neutrality.

We would have to assume that a war, for the purpose of this resolution is current. I'd like to hear which theory you think is of best fit.

Under what circumstances would the assembly deem the country a "non neutral"?
Sir Marcus Darcourt, A belligerent nation. If theory number 2 is adopted then a belligerent state would be simply defined as "a state that is involved or supportive of an ongoing war."

Unfortunately it is difficult to determine the actions of a nation. It is difficult to decide whether the actions count as supporting a belligerent nation. One option would be to refine a belligerent nation to be defined as "a state that is involved in a war, or is knowingly supplying nations that are involved in war".

Under what circumstances would the assembly deem a previously classified "neutral" to have violated their "neutrality"

Sir Marcus Darcourt, I am reviewing that as well. If I were to refine the definition of a belligerent state to "a state that is involved in a war, or is knowingly supplying nations that are involved in war", it might be simpler.

Overall section 2a of the original is the culprit of complexity and must be revised.

It is the belief of myself and my government that each each conflict should be viewed individually. The logic being that a country can on one hand remain neutral in conflict A but be involved in say a defensive action in what would I suppose be called conflict B.

I would put to you that for this bill to be properly encompassing, then countries should apply for the neutral classification on a conflict-to-conflict basis and it should not be granted only if they arent engaged in an action else where.

That is our input. Other than that, the rest of your proposed changes are acceptable to the Commonwealth.

We find the proposed revisions to section 3 to be quite troubling.

If Nation A is trading with Nation B while Nation B is at war, then Nation A is providing support to Nation B. How can Nation A still be considered neutral in that case?

It is true that perhaps section 3 can be reworded to allow certain types of trade, so long as it is clear that the commodities being traded have no connection whatsoever to any military conflict. But right now we cannot see how that is possible; perhaps representatives smarter than us can figure that out.

Until then, we advise that the distinguished representative from Charlotte Ryberg exercise caution and leave section 3 alone. In fact, we are not convinced that the resolution itself shouldn't be left alone.

As far as I can see, section 3 only restricts Military goods.

We find the proposed revisions to section 3 to be quite troubling.

If Nation A is trading with Nation B while Nation B is at war, then Nation A is providing support to Nation B. How can Nation A still be considered neutral in that case?

It is true that perhaps section 3 can be reworded to allow certain types of trade, so long as it is clear that the commodities being traded have no connection whatsoever to any military conflict. But right now we cannot see how that is possible; perhaps representatives smarter than us can figure that out.

Until then, we advise that the distinguished representative from Charlotte Ryberg exercise caution and leave section 3 alone. In fact, we are not convinced that the resolution itself shouldn't be left alone.

As far as I can see, section 3 only restricts Military goods.
Sir Marcus Darcourt and the honoured representatives to Scotchpinestan, I think the only types of trade allowed between Nation A and B in your case should be civilian-related only. A neutral state certainly cannot be neutral if it intentionally supplies weapons and goods to the military of a belligerent nation. But I'd like to hear whether if we should define a nation that supports another belligerent nation involved in a said war as belligerent too.

But I'd like to hear whether if we should define a nation that supports another belligerent nation involved in a said war as belligerent too.That would be a bit too dangerous for me to support, Ambassador Harper. Let's not tread in to the gray areas. There's no certainty that a supplier nation even has an army to defend itself; which just might be the reason why they've entered in to such a trade deal with a nation that does have an army.

Of course there are proxy wars and equally unnerving situations. But, it almost becomes too complex to define what makes a nation belligerent if it's not actually attacking another nation.

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

Sir Marcus Darcourt and the honoured representatives to Scotchpinestan, I think the only types of trade allowed between Nation A and B in your case should be civilian-related only. A neutral state certainly cannot be neutral if it intentionally supplies weapons and goods to the military of a belligerent nation. But I'd like to hear whether if we should define a nation that supports another belligerent nation involved in a said war as belligerent too.

I see that you are testing every theory but assumptions do need be made: the bad guys in this case should be the government and military of the belligerent nation and militants directly involved in a war: the neutral nations must not at least be supporting them to be neutral. I would support a resolution that treats each war individually and there should be no exceptions when it comes to belligerents being banned from invading neutrals.

King Alexander II

Neutrality cannot be re-defined to include the economic interests of a non-belligerent state in our opinion.

Whole economies might be decimated should the nation in which they arise be re-defined as no longer neutral. So long as a state is not making territorial or political gains at the expense of other states which are at war, we can see no possible reason to stigmatise the honest pursuit of economic growth.

Urgench is rightly renowned for its medical technologies and advanced pharmaceuticals, we have no ethical qualms about selling these miraculous innovations to which ever state desires to obtain them. If these technologies were to be used by a belligerent nation to improve the health and medical treatment of its soldiery why should we be divested of our Neutral status, a status which would make buying these commodities from us all the more advantageous since states would be guaranteed that our corporations and companies would be showing no particular favour to one side or another involved in conflict ?

We are neutral because we will not involve our armed forces in the prosecution of conflicts which do not threaten the security and prosperity of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench and because in most if not all cases we are disinterested in the outcomes of these wars and also exactly because what the private businesses of the empire choose to do in terms of trading with belligerent states is not the business of our government.


Yours,

Neutrality cannot be re-defined to include the economic interests of a non-belligerent state in our opinion.

Whole economies might be decimated should the nation in which they arise be re-defined as no longer neutral. So long as a state is not making territorial or political gains at the expense of other states which are at war, we can see no possible reason to stigmatise the honest pursuit of economic growth.

Urgench is rightly renowned for its medical technologies and advanced pharmaceuticals, we have no ethical qualms about selling these miraculous innovations to which ever state desires to obtain them. If these technologies were to be used by a belligerent nation to improve the health and medical treatment of its soldiery why should we be divested of our Neutral status, a status which would make buying these commodities from us all the more advantageous since states would be guaranteed that our corporations and companies would be showing no particular favour to one side or another involved in conflict ?

We are neutral because we will not involve our armed forces in the prosecution of conflicts which do not threaten the security and prosperity of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench and because in most if not all cases we are disinterested in the outcomes of these wars and also exactly because what the private businesses of the empire choose to do in terms of trading with belligerent states is not the business of our government.

Yours,
I second to that. What should only be restricted is the armed forces, soldiers, spies, agents, weapons, bombs, mines, missiles, explosives and anything that has the capability to kill.

What should not be restricted is superheroes like Batman.

I second to that. What should only be restricted is the armed forces, soldiers, spies, agents, weapons, bombs, mines, missiles, explosives and anything that has the capability to kill.

What should not be restricted is superheroes like Batman.


I'm afraid we would not be able to agree to the restriction of arms sales, honoured Ambassador.

Put simply, arms manufacturers and dealers would have substantially less opportunity to make reasonable profits if they were restricted from selling arms to belligerent states by the neutral status of the nation in which they are based.

Again it is the neutral status of the nation in question which should mean that this nation's arms manufacturers should be more successful, since belligerent states should be able to trust that in buying arms in such a state there will be no political biases or strategic goals involved in the neutral state's business practices.

Indeed restricting neutral states from trading in anything to belligerent states would be highly injurious to peace in general, since there would be no reward for neutrality and in fact there would be penalties imposed on the economy of neutral states. This would encourage states into actively taking sides in conflicts which do not concern them because in doing so they will be able to make more advantageous trade arrangements than if they remained neutral.


Yours,

I think it would be wise to leave trade out for now and focus on the core of what Neutral states must or must not do, like this:

1. Basically, for the duration of the war in question, Neutral states must not:
a) Send troops into that war, and;
b) Influence the outcome of that war, except when they are mediating a truce or peaceful end to the conflict.

We agree with our Esteemed Colleague from Urgench, we can't see denying the businesses of a neutral nations simply because one of their clients is in a war, that their nation is staying neutral in.

1. Basically, for the duration of the war in question, Neutral states must not:
a) Send troops into that war, regardless of whatever side they are on, and;



Presumably if a state is neutral then they aren't on any side are they honoured Ambassador ?

Presumably if a state is neutral then they aren't on any side are they honoured Ambassador ?

Absolutely, Mongkha. I've corrected that.

Put simply, arms manufacturers and dealers would have substantially less opportunity to make reasonable profits if they were restricted from selling arms to belligerent states by the neutral status of the nation in which they are based.

This would only be true if said arms dealers were run by that nation's government. Private enterprises wouldn't be bound by this, nor are they bound by the original resolution.


Indeed restricting neutral states from trading in anything to belligerent states would be highly injurious to peace in general, since there would be no reward for neutrality and in fact there would be penalties imposed on the economy of neutral states. This would encourage states into actively taking sides in conflicts which do not concern them because in doing so they will be able to make more advantageous trade arrangements than if they remained neutral.


Might we remind the distinguished representative that the current NoN resolution, still in effect, does contain such trade restrictions, and the doomsday scenario that the representative describes has not come to fruition.

I hope to some compromise can being made in regards to trade before making it final but I do recognise that there is a fine line between under-protection and over-protection.

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.

Section 3 of the original resolution defines the trade only military-related restrictions to prevent belligerent states from making military gains from neutral nations. Pharmaceutical products don't fall under this because it is not military-related.

Would it be acceptable, if I clarified for the replacement, that these restrictions would only affect the government and state-run companies of a neutral state?

This would only be true if said arms dealers were run by that nation's government. Private enterprises wouldn't be bound by this, nor are they bound by the original resolution.

So you think, do you honoured Ambassador, that a state would consent to allow private arms manufacturers and dealers to fundamentally undermine its international status as Neutral, putting it at risk of being attacked by numerous other belligerent states ? In any event some states do manufacture and sell arms in much the same way as a private business would and are as intitled to do so whilst maintaining their neutral status so long as they remain actively neutral in any conflict.



Might we remind the distinguished representative that the current NoN resolution, still in effect, does contain such trade restrictions, and the doomsday scenario that the representative describes has not come to fruition.


We need no reminders thank you honoured Ambassador, but we might say that we predicted no "doomsday scenario", we merely warned that penalising the economies of neutral states for remaining neutral is a dangerous practice liable to undermine international peace.

But if the respected delegation of Scotchpinestan wishes to make a wider point about the evils of arms dealing, or about the actual merits of the current neutrality laws then perhaps they should do so. Or did they simply wish to correct us on the basis of a faulty understanding of our position or an even faultier conception of the concept of neutrality ?


Yours,

I hope to some compromise can being made in regards to trade before making it final but I do recognise that there is a fine line between under-protection and over-protection.



Section 3 of the original resolution defines the trade only military-related restrictions to prevent belligerent states from making military gains from neutral nations. Pharmaceutical products don't fall under this because it is not military-related.

Would it be acceptable, if I clarified for the replacement, that these restrictions would only affect the government and state-run companies of a neutral state?


Well if the honoured Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg really wants to make the decision that a state run company should be penalised but a private one should not then maybe this would represent a compromise.

However this would be highly injurious to states which do not have private sectors, such as communist states, or anarcho-sindicalist states. It would seem rather unfair to allow such states to face the possibility of having their neutral status removed while states which practice capitalism of one kind or another remain free to trade in arms while keeping their neutral status.

Essentially this problem has arisen because a view seems to be prevalent that trade has something to do with a nation's status as neutral, if this draft is to represent an improvement it should properly define what neutrality is, and in our opinion, and we are sure the opinions of many other sensible nations, trade has nothing to do with neutrality at all.



Yours,

It would sound better to just restrict trade to the government of neutral nations.

Essentially this problem has arisen because a view seems to be prevalent that trade has something to do with a nation's status as neutral, if this draft is to represent an improvement it should properly define what neutrality is, and in our opinion, and we are sure the opinions of many other sensible nations, trade has nothing to do with neutrality at all.

Nothing in the analysis in our international law archives suggest that trade is involved in the laws of neutrality. It past laws for our region suggests that restrictions fall mainly on the military and the affairs of a belligerent state.

We were wondering if this statute might deal with the legal status of "non-aligned", this being closely related to neutrality, but less absolute in nature.

In fact non-aligned status would seem to us to be crucial in defining Neutrality since it represents a grade of neutrality.


Yours,

Non-alignment is concept of its own yet it is a good aspect to elaborate on: some nations may resist from military alliances in order to preserve neutrality in case of war and perhaps with the hope of preventing a war altogether.

Basically, I could define a neutral country as either: a country that is not involved in a war between belligerent nations, or a country that desists from military alliances to preserve neutrality in an event of war.

A belligerent nation, on the other hand, could be defined as a country that is involved in one or many wars.

Nothing in the analysis in our international law archives suggest that trade is involved in the laws of neutrality. It past laws for our region suggests that restrictions fall mainly on the military and the affairs of a belligerent state.
Our opinion on the matter is in direct contradiction to your own, and has not changed since we last debated the subject. If one trades with one belligerant in a war but not the other (making the simplifying assumption that there are but two parties), it is hard to see how one can conceivably be neutral.

Our opinion on the matter is in direct contradiction to your own, and has not changed since we last debated the subject. If one trades with one belligerant in a war but not the other (making the simplifying assumption that there are but two parties), it is hard to see how one can conceivably be neutral.

If one trades with both sides in this conflict without discrimination then one is of course neutral, honoured Ambassador. Indeed the mere fact of completely indiscriminate trade with all and any who wish to do so, regardless of who takes up the opportunity, seems as neutral a position as can be described.


Yours,

I agree with the Ambassador of Urgench on this. Would any article on trade cover banks; and not just arms, domestic trade. If you have a bank in a neutral country that basically is bankrolling a belligerant nations war but the bank has never had any relations with the belligerant nations opponent(s), would that violate neutrality?

If one trades with both sides in this conflict without discrimination then one is of course neutral, honoured Ambassador. Indeed the mere fact of completely indiscriminate trade with all and any who wish to do so, regardless of who takes up the opportunity, seems as neutral a position as can be described.

I agree with Mongkha. Neutral states shouldn't be required by resolution to restrict the use of transport or communications to and from belligerents, but should one choose to restrict the use of such against belligerents for their protection it should be done impartially.

I agree with the Ambassador of Urgench on this. Would any article on trade cover banks; and not just arms, domestic trade. If you have a bank in a neutral country that basically is bankrolling a belligerant nations war but the bank has never had any relations with the belligerant nations opponent(s), would that violate neutrality?

No, just as long as neutral nations do not allow belligerents to violate their territory.

A neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality should not be regarded as a hostile act.

No, just as long as neutral nations do not allow belligerents to violate their territory.

A neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality should not be regarded as a hostile act.

We thank the respectable Ms. Berlin for the clarification

Hello,

I am beginning to do a rough draft of a part of the revised resolution and it would be grateful to see what you think:

The World Assembly,

SEEKING to:
- Protect the rights and duties of neutral powers from belligerent powers in case of war;
- Define the meaning of the term “neutral”.

ACKNOWLEDGING that neutral states need to observe some obligations to justify its neutrality;

Hereby enacts the following:

Definitions:
(a) A “neutral power” is a country that is either not involved in a war, or resistant to military alliances to preserve neutrality in an event of war;
(b) A “belligerent power” is a country that is involved in one or many wars.

Article 1:
1. The territory of neutral powers cannot be violated.
2. Belligerent powers will not move their armed forces of convoys of any war supplies across the territory of a neutral power.
3. Further to section 2, belligerent powers will not:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral power any apparatus for the purpose of communication with belligerent forces;
(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for civilian use.
4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral power to assist belligerent powers.

Article 2:
A neutral power must not allow any of the acts as described in Article 1 to occur in their territory...

We like what you have written thus far. We have a few issues and suggestions:
Does it forbid the use of airspace/territorial waters of said Neutral nations off-limits to belligerant powers as well? It is our interpretation of Section 2, Article 1 that albeit I do assume you mean other than land territory it can and is inferred that water/air is still in play. Can a neutral nation allow use of airspace and water and still be neutral?

Also Section 2 ptB, Article 1: Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for civilian use. All installations by the belligerant parties should be closed with No Exceptions, to avoid any appearance of improriety and opportunity to exploit this as "Civilian" while furthering their military gains.

We feel that any closure of any previous established infrastructure this should be taken and handled by the top diplomats of involved nations as to avoid possibly drawing the "Neutral" nation into war. Im afraid that the Neutral nations rights in this legislation would be infringed, also any neutral nation should close any embassy or diplomatic office/operations be suspended until conclusion of the said war.

This is just our stance and will vote in favor should it get to vote stage.

Delegation of Studly Penguins
WA Ambassador

also any neutral nation should close any embassy or diplomatic office/operations be suspended until conclusion of the said war.
No. That would make starting negotiations between the belligerents to end any war much harder, by removing neutral venues where the matter could be raised...
(OOC: and it certainly isn't expected in RL...)

No. That would make starting negotiations between the belligerents to end any war much harder, by removing neutral venues where the matter could be raised...
(OOC: and it certainly isn't expected in RL...)

Good point. That was our oversight

We like what you have written thus far. We have a few issues and suggestions:
Does it forbid the use of airspace/territorial waters of said Neutral nations off-limits to belligerant powers as well? It is our interpretation of Section 2, Article 1 that albeit I do assume you mean other than land territory it can and is inferred that water/air is still in play. Can a neutral nation allow use of airspace and water and still be neutral?

Also Section 2 ptB, Article 1: Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for civilian use. All installations by the belligerant parties should be closed with No Exceptions, to avoid any appearance of improriety and opportunity to exploit this as "Civilian" while furthering their military gains.

We feel that any closure of any previous established infrastructure this should be taken and handled by the top diplomats of involved nations as to avoid possibly drawing the "Neutral" nation into war. Im afraid that the Neutral nations rights in this legislation would be infringed, also any neutral nation should close any embassy or diplomatic office/operations be suspended until conclusion of the said war.

This is just our stance and will vote in favor should it get to vote stage.

Delegation of Studly Penguins
WA Ambassador

Of course belligerents are generally forbidden from neutral territory but there can be a tricky situation when one landlocked belligerent is surrounded by neutrals and they don't have aircraft (OOC, we cannot assume the NS world to be completely advanced: although I set Chl. Ryberg's tech level to the same as RL Japan, technology may vary greatly throughout the NS world). In this case they would be allowed dispensation to traverse neutral territory as said in the revision to Art. 1.2 but only if that is the only route possible to reach another belligerent territory, and must be done peacefully.

Also, I have revised Art. 1.3b to ban any belligerent power from using their military installations that were installed before a war and make clear that a neutral power resisting even by force any attempt to violate its neutrality is not regarded as a hostile act, but as an act of defence instead... so some bit of leeway there.

Still on the first part...


The World Assembly,

DESIRING to:
- Implement the rights and duties of neutral powers in case of war;
- Implement the regulations on the position of the belligerents taking refuge in neutral states;
- Define the meaning of the term “neutral”.

Hereby enacts the following:

Definitions:
a) A “neutral power” is a country that is either not involved in a war, or resistant to military alliances to preserve neutrality in an event of war;
b) A “belligerent power” is a country that is involved in one or many wars.

Article 1:
1. All territories of neutral powers (land air and sea) are inviolable.
2. Belligerent powers will refrain from moving their armed forces of convoys of any war supplies across any territory of a neutral power, with the exception of mere/peaceful passages through its territory if it is the only route possible to reach other belligerent territories.
3. Further to section 2, belligerent powers will not:
a) Erect on the territory of a neutral power any apparatus for the purpose of communication with belligerent forces;
b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power.
4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral power to assist belligerent powers.

Article 2:
1. A neutral power must not allow any of the acts as described in Article 1 to occur in their territory.
2. A neutral power is not required to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts were committed in their territory.

Article 3:
– A neutral power resisting even by force any attempt to violate its neutrality is not regarded as a hostile act.

We like it!!! Great improvements, We think it is in real good shape now!! Unless there are other changes, we dont have anymore thoughts for improvment.

The definition of "neutral" would appear to be adequately vague to satisfy us.

the definition of war, doesn't seem to apply to nations and rebel groups both in and across international borders. it only says war is nation to nation. something completely wrong and a big loophole.

Wachichi.

the definition of war, doesn't seem to apply to nations and rebel groups both in and across international borders. it only says war is nation to nation. something completely wrong and a big loophole.

Wachichi.

You bring up a good point. Perhaps an Article 4 could be included, preventing rebel groups from utilising neutral countries as safe havens?

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

If it's about the fact I forgot to update post #1, please accept my apologies. It's done now. The new draft is very different to the previous version.

The definition of "neutral" would appear to be adequately vague to satisfy us.

I don't know whether you've confused the old version with the new one but I believe that the fact that a “neutral power” is a country that is either not involved in a war, or resistant to military alliances to preserve neutrality in an event of war is quite simple. If you meant to suggest a nation that refuses to join a war I can cater for that. In that case the revision would be:

A “neutral power” is a country that is either:
- Not involved in a war;
- Resistant to military alliances to preserve neutrality in an event of war;
- Resistant to any involvement in war.

the definition of war, doesn't seem to apply to nations and rebel groups both in and across international borders. it only says war is nation to nation. something completely wrong and a big loophole
You bring up a good point. Perhaps an Article 4 could be included, preventing rebel groups from utilising neutral countries as safe havens?

Although I am talking about big wars between nations and factions, it happens that militants and factions may be part of the squabble. Perhaps consider the following:

A “belligerent power” is a country, faction or militia that is involved in one or many wars.

Now the terrorists can't seek sanctuary in a neutral state, but be cautious not to get too deep down to a point where we're actually involving public disorder.

No that would be satisfactory. I just dont want to see nations getting into trouble for chasing combatants across borders, or for those combatants to think they can safely stay in neutral countries, crossing when they like to take pot-shots.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

No that would be satisfactory. I just dont want to see nations getting into trouble for chasing combatants across borders, or for those combatants to think they can safely stay in neutral countries, crossing when they like to take pot-shots.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

We agree with the Ambassador and other comments on this issue prior. We assume the 'Safe Haven' provision will only pertain to irregular military units; militias, guerrillas, etc.

I know that the Ryberg Delegation has addressed this issue once but with this new provision thats been added, we think it could be relevant again. Any apologies if we are off the mark here. I see where and how we are covering factions trying to seek protection in "Neutral" country, but how do you handle a nation financing/training these "rebel groups/factions" if the gov't of the Neutral country is allied with, supports, and this was all prior to the eruption of conflict but did not break ties with them?

Would their banks and policy violate this new Article 4

I think banks should be left out of this, because unless they are state-owned, they are independent of the nation. Here in Tai Lao, we do put pressure on banks to not deal with international criminal activities and foreign conflicts, but it can be a bit hard to deal with. If a group opens up an account, then proceeds to commit the act afterwards, the most our banks can do is close their account, meaning instead of dribbling the money out as they want they are effectively dumping it on them.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

That works for us.

Our opinion on the matter is in direct contradiction to your own, and has not changed since we last debated the subject. If one trades with one belligerant in a war but not the other (making the simplifying assumption that there are but two parties), it is hard to see how one can conceivably be neutral.

Well said.

My opinion is that neutral powers are not required by resolution to restrict trade to or from belligerent nations, but if they do choose to restrict trade to belligerent nations, it must be done impartially, i.e. to all belligerents.

My opinion is that neutral powers are not required by resolution to restrict trade to or from belligerent nations, but if they do choose to restrict trade to belligerent nations, it must be done impartially, i.e. to all belligerents.

We agree 100% here. In order to avoid me asking the same questions over again, this in the aforementioned quote will this be implied within the language of the resolution or be explicitly written in?

Doesnt matter to us; we were just wondering?

I can actually show you a bit of section 4 now:

Article 4 – Embargoes:
1. A neutral power is not required to restrict or forbid the use on behalf of one or many belligerent powers:
a) The export or transport of anything that may be of use to an armed force;
b) The use of telecommunications systems belonging to companies or individuals.
2. However, if any measure of restriction or prohibition be undertaken by a neutral power in regards to the matters as stated in Article 4.1, it must be impartially applied to all belligerents.

That so nails it on the head!!! That definately takes care of that issue!!

Of course war should not hurt the civilians trade hard. Belligerents only need be hit if a neutral nations choose to do so.

Then you need to add bits about casualties now.

Of course war should hurt the civilians trade hard. Belligerents only need be hit if a neutral nations choose to do so.

Then you need to add bits about casualties now.

What kind of Casualty admendments would you add Ambassador? It is an interesting thought.

A neutral Power may allow the passage over its territory of the sick and wounded belonging to the belligerent armies, on condition that war material is not carried with them.

Neutral powers are urged to take any measures of safety and control which are necessary for that purpose.

The sick or wounded brought under the these conditions are out of that war for good, and are protected by the neutral power such that they cannot be returned into battle until the end of the war. This is for the safety of the wounded and sick.

I can actually show you a bit of section 4 now:
Article 4 – Embargoes:
1. A neutral power is not required to restrict or forbid the use on behalf of one or many belligerent powers:
a) The export or transport of anything that may be of use to an armed force;
b) The use of telecommunications systems belonging to companies or individuals.
2. However, if any measure of restriction or prohibition be undertaken by a neutral power in regards to the matters as stated in Article 4.1, it must be impartially applied to all belligerents.
We feel this approach to be entirely backwards, and marks a considerable deterioration in the proposal. It is trade which must be held rigorously in balance between belligerants (and preferably in our opinion banned). Under such a system, equality of restriction falls out naturally. Under this system, equality of trade does not.

We would also register our unhappiness that the "definition" of neutrality turns out not to be a definition at all, since it is modified as the proposal progresses.

We would also register our unhappiness that the "definition" of neutrality turns out not to be a definition at all, since it is modified as the proposal progresses.

I suggest Sarah Harper that the definition should simply be a country that takes no side in a conflict or, yes, one that is resistant to military alliances to preserve neutrality in an event of war.

Article 3 is a bit like "armed neutrality". A country that reserves the right to become a belligerent if attacked by a party to the war is in a condition of armed neutrality.

We feel this approach to be entirely backwards, and marks a considerable deterioration in the proposal. It is trade which must be held rigorously in balance between belligerants (and preferably in our opinion banned). Under such a system, equality of restriction falls out naturally. Under this system, equality of trade does not.

You must remember that it is not the governments that trade with belligerents, but private companies. Any company that is wholly or partially owned by the state we agree should be barred from trading, but those who are private companies, especially multi-nationals, are out of the hands of governments. Governments can put pressure on them not to, but really they cant do much else, because like in the case of banks, they dont exactly know where the goods are going to, save for the arms industry.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

You must remember that it is not the governments that trade with belligerents, but private companies. Any company that is wholly or partially owned by the state we agree should be barred from trading, but those who are private companies, especially multi-nationals, are out of the hands of governments. Governments can put pressure on them not to, but really they cant do much else, because like in the case of banks, they dont exactly know where the goods are going to, save for the arms industry.

Then in our view they cannot reasonably claim neutrality.

Then in our view they cannot reasonably claim neutrality.

So you would rather loose the jobs of your citizens than allow a company, especially a multi-national one, that isnt directly under your control to trade with nations that could be at war?

Though we advise strongly against private or publicly traded companies trading with nations who are at war, we allow them so long as they are not biased towards one side. On the other hand, cause of our neutral status, any company that is either wholly or partially owned by the government or members of the royal family must suspend trading with warring nations until their conflict is over. We see a distinction between government and non-government companies when it comes to trading. Hell, some non-government companies have traded with countries we wouldnt like them to, but we haven't stood in it's way because in the end we know it is employment for our citizens

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I suggest Sarah Harper that the definition should simply be a country that takes no side in a conflict or, yes, one that is resistant to military alliances to preserve neutrality in an event of war.

Article 3 is a bit like "armed neutrality". A country that reserves the right to become a belligerent if attacked by a party to the war is in a condition of armed neutrality.

OOC, a bit like Ireland in World War II... done.

So you would rather loose the jobs of your citizens than allow a company, especially a multi-national one, that isnt directly under your control to trade with nations that could be at war?

This is a false dichotomy. The question is not whether we would rather lose jobs than allow a company to trade with nations that could be at war. It is instead whether or not we consider the status of neutrality to be worth the potential loss of jobs in companies which are trading with nations which are at war. That is a question that only individual nations can answer with respect to individual conflicts; it is however a question that they should answer, since avoiding it is tantamount to claiming that trade has no beneficial effect on a war economy.

This is a false dichotomy. The question is not whether we would rather lose jobs than allow a company to trade with nations that could be at war. It is instead whether or not we consider the status of neutrality to be worth the potential loss of jobs in companies which are trading with nations which are at war. That is a question that only individual nations can answer with respect to individual conflicts; it is however a question that they should answer, since avoiding it is tantamount to claiming that trade has no beneficial effect on a war economy.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. We here see that any non-government company is only subject to our laws and regulations when they operate within our borders. How they conduct their affairs outside them, save for outsourcing when it comes to Tai Lao-owned companies, is subject to those nations, unless you want to make a proposal based on international commerce. Then again, under Resolution #34 the borders of the WA are pretty much flung open as far as trade is concerned, thus nations that declare themselves neutral kinda have no choice but to trade with warring nations...

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

This is a false dichotomy. The question is not whether we would rather lose jobs than allow a company to trade with nations that could be at war. It is instead whether or not we consider the status of neutrality to be worth the potential loss of jobs in companies which are trading with nations which are at war. That is a question that only individual nations can answer with respect to individual conflicts; it is however a question that they should answer, since avoiding it is tantamount to claiming that trade has no beneficial effect on a war economy.

As long as your nations factories arent building their tanks, fighters, bombers, missiles, artillery, or other war machines; it is of little importance if our banks do buisness with other nations who may be at war; whether abroad or at home.

OOC: Example Swiss banks in 2nd World War; Kept and held all German and other Axis Treasuries(War Chests), hell even held some of the US and other Allies. All the while being a "Neutral" Country

I would STRONGLY suggest deleting the final part of clause 1.2, the bit that would allow belligerent nations to send armed forces through the territories of neutral states if that's the only way in which they could reach their targets: If the forces of a belligerent nation can't reach another belliegrent's territory without passing through a neutral nation then that should be it, no passage.

Incidentally, was this clause meant to require the consent of the neutral nation's own government before those forces moved through, or not? It doesn't actually say, either way, and in my opinion (and that of my government, whom I've consulted on the matter: that's why it's taken me so long to comment..) either way could impinge seriously on the 'neutral' nation's state of neutrality...

I would STRONGLY suggest deleting the final part of clause 1.2, the bit that would allow belligerent nations to send armed forces through the territories of neutral states if that's the only way in which they could reach their targets: If the forces of a belligerent nation can't reach another belligerent's territory without passing through a neutral nation then that should be it, no passage.

Incidentally, was this clause meant to require the consent of the neutral nation's own government before those forces moved through, or not? It doesn't actually say, either way, and in my opinion (and that of my government, whom I've consulted on the matter: that's why it's taken me so long to comment..) either way could impinge seriously on the 'neutral' nation's state of neutrality...


I think I was stating this in terms of air and sea, not land.

After reviewing the section I think the last bit should be cut off.

Article 1.2 now reads: "Belligerent powers will refrain from moving their armed forces of convoys of any war supplies across any territory of a neutral power."

My opinion, If I can reiterate, is that the activities of private and commercial businesses do not challenge the neutrality of a country, because it is private business.

My opinion, If I can reiterate, is that the activities of private and commercial businesses do not challenge the neutrality of a country, because it is private business.

While Ambassador Sarah is of that opinion and her proposal resolutely fails to state it, we are content.

Now we are:

Article 4:
1. The activities of private and commercial businesses do not challenge the neutrality of said power.
2. A neutral power is not required to restrict or forbid (on behalf of one or many belligerent powers):
a) The export or transport of anything that may be of use to an armed force;
b) The use of telecommunications systems belonging to companies or individuals.
3. However, if any measure of restriction or prohibition be undertaken by a neutral power in regards to the matters as stated in Article 4.1, it must be impartially applied.

Article 5:
1. Citizens of a neutral power are considered as neutrals.
2. A neutral cannot avail himself of neutrality even if it commits acts in either way of a belligerent, regardless of position or belief. A neutral cannot be more severely treated by a belligerent power as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a citizen of that belligerent power could be for the same act.

Article 6:
1. A country that carries out genocide or similar crimes against humanity (such as ethnic cleansing) cannot be considered a neutral power.

OOC: Please accept my apologies for the delay due to illness.

We like the revisions as stands on Economic and other political matters.

OOC: Glad you're feeling better :)

Article 1 section 1
We would like to add that a belligerant naval vessel may put into a neutral port for repairs for a period of 72 hours and no longer. The crew of said vessel may not disembark for shore leave. This may only be done with the consent of the neutral government the port lies within.

Bethany Hawk, Ambassador of Luxem and Leon.

We would be interested in an explanation of why article 4 is not self-contradictory. We are highly unlikely to support its inclusion in any case, but are having some trouble in reconciling the blunt declaration of subsection 1 with the equally blunt duty of subsection 3.

The issue may be that 4.3 pointed to the wrong subsection. I was meant to be 4.2: that used to be 4.1 before I believed that the acts of individuals or private industries could not be proven to challenge neutrality. Again, embargoes are optional but if it is to be used then it is to be done impartially.

Article 4:
1. The acts of individuals or private industries do not challenge the neutrality of the said power.
2. A neutral power is not required to restrict or forbid on behalf of one or many belligerent powers:
a) The export or transport of anything that may be of use to an armed force;
b) The use of telecommunications systems belonging to companies or individuals.
3. If any measure of restriction or prohibition be undertaken by a neutral power in regards to the matters as stated in Article 4.2, it must be impartially applied to all belligerents. Individuals and private industries of the neutral power must observe such restriction.

I see you've started to cover naval warfare: you've about 750 characters left but save some for humanitarian provisions too.

The issue may be that 4.3 pointed to the wrong subsection. I was meant to be 4.2: that used to be 4.1 before I believed that the acts of individuals or private industries could not be proven to challenge neutrality.
We fear this relieves our confusion not one whit.