NationStates Jolt Archive

REDRAFT

This is the LATEST version of the proposal (16th February 2009):

RIGHTS ABOUT MILITARY SERVICE

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: The World Assembly,

Understanding that the risk of War is unfortunately an inevitable fact of existence for many nations, and that some nations may therefore consider it necessary to require compulsory service in their armed forces,

Believing that this fact should not free national governments from the requirements of common decency,

Understanding that some people may sincerely hold religious or philosophical beliefs that the violence inherent in War makes service in armed forces, or possibly even any work that directly supports a nation’s war effort, morally unacceptable,

Regretting that some nations might treat people who have served in their armed forces with neglect or even disdain;

1. Accepts that nations can choose to have laws requiring people to perform some form of ‘national service’, possibly in their armed forces, and may also choose to have fulfillment of that duty be a legal prerequisite for the possession of voting rights and/or for holding public office, subject to the following limits:
A. Only people who already count as legally competent adults under the nation’s laws can be conscripted;
B. The process of conscription for this compulsory service must not involve any form of unfair and unreasonable discrimination;
C. Anybody who proves that they genuinely believe the violence inherent in War to make military service morally wrong must be exempted from it, although they may then be required to perform some alternative form of ‘national service’ instead, and likewise anybody whose belief about this extends to forbidding even non-military service that would directly aid war efforts;
D. Anybody who is exempted from any form of compulsory service because of their sincerely held beliefs must not be punished or otherwise discriminated against because of this fact;
E. Member nations may not conscript any foreigners unless such conscription is legal in those persons’ own homelands and they have treaties with those countries that specifically allow this;
F. If anybody conscripted into a member nation’s service has any dependants then that nation must take proper care of the dependants’ welfare during the conscript’s period of service;

2. Specifies that nations_
A. May encourage people to volunteer for their armed forces by offering one-off rewards, in cash or kind, payable at enlistment or at completion of service; may give volunteers more choice than conscripts get about enlisting for specific branches and units, maybe even units guaranteed not to be sent abroad, within those forces; and may give volunteers priority over conscripts for promotion and for training in specialised roles;
B. May not discriminate in any other way against anybody in those forces for being conscripts rather than volunteers;

3. EMPHATICALLY urges all nations to help all people who have served in their armed forces, whether as volunteers or as conscripts, by:
A. Providing those people with whatever help they require for re-entering civilian life, once that service is over, including financial support for them and for any dependants whom they possess until they no longer need this;
B. Providing full medical care, free of charge, for any injuries and illnesses that were incurred due to that service;
C. Providing adequate pensions for any of those people who are no longer capable of earning a living;
D. Promoting a general attitude of respect towards the current and past members of those forces amongst their peoples.

PREVIOUS VERSIOn (14th February 2009)

RIGHTS ABOUT MILITARY SERVICE

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: The World Assembly,

Understanding that War, or at least preparation in case of it, is unfortunately an inevitable fact of existence for many nations, and that some nations may therefore consider it necessary to require compulsory service in their armed forces,

Believing that this fact should not free national governments from the requirements of common decency,

Understanding that some people may sincerely hold religious or philosophical beliefs that the violence inherent in War makes service in armed forces, or possibly even any work that directly supports a nation’s war effort, morally unacceptable,

Regretting that some nations might treat people who have served in their armed forces with neglect or even disdain;

1. Accepts that nations can choose to have laws requiring people to carry out some form of ‘national service’, possibly in their armed forces, and may also choose to have the performance of that duty be a legal prerequisite for the possession of voting rights and/or for holding public office, subject to the following limits:
A. Only people who already count as legally competent adults under the nation’s laws can be conscripted;
B. The process of conscription for this compulsory service must not involve any form of unfair and unreasonable discrimination;
C. Anybody who proves that they genuinely believe the violence inherent in War to make military service morally wrong must be exempted from it, although they may then be required to perform some alternative form of ‘national service’ instead, and likewise anybody whose belief about this extends to forbidding even non-military service that would directly aid war efforts;
D. Anybody who is exempted from any form of compulsory service because of their sincerely held beliefs must not be punished or otherwise discriminated against because of this fact;
E. Member nations may not conscript any foreigners unless such conscription is legal in those persons’ own homelands and they have treaties with those countries that specifically allow this;
F. If anybody conscripted into a member nation’s service has any dependants then that nation must take proper care of those dependents’ welfare during that conscript’s period of service;

2. Specifies that nations_
A. May encourage people to volunteer for their armed forces by offering one-off rewards, in cash or kind, payable at enlistment or at completion of service; may give volunteers more choice than conscripts get about enlisting for specific branches and units, maybe even units guaranteed not to be sent abroad, within those forces; and may give volunteers preference over conscripts for promotion, and for training in specialised roles;
B. May not discriminate in any other way against anybody in those forces for being conscripts rather than volunteers;

3. EMPHATICALLY urges all nations to help all people who have served in their armed forces, whether as volunteers or as conscripts, by:
A. Providing those people with whatever help they require for re-entering civilian life, once that service is over, including financial support for them and for any dependants whom they possess until they no longer need this;
B. Providing full medical care, free of charge, for any injuries and illnesses that were incurred due to that service;
C. Providing adequate pensions for any of those people who are no longer capable of earning a living;
D. Promoting a general attitude of respect towards the current and past members of those forces amongst their nations’ peoples.

I have now included a ban on the recruitment of children in clause #1after all, despite the existing ‘child protection’ resolution, in case the latter ever gets repealed.
The former clause #3 has had to be sacrificed, in order to free-up the necessary number of characters for the changes that I've already mentioned. Oh well, maybe it will be possible to fit this into our other proposal on military service when we come to draft that measure...

The draft below is the original one, now obsolete, kept intact for reference purposes…

________________________________________________________________________

Hrarroom!

Bearing in mind the recent passage and [hopefully] imminent repeal of the ‘Veterans Rights Act’, and also various discussions here during the last few months about such matters as conscription into nations’ armed forces, conscientious objectors to military service, war crimes, and the ‘proper’ control of mercenaries and privateers and other ‘civilian contractors’, I have — at my government’s instructions — supervised the drafting of two proposals that I hope most of you will agree cover these collected topics adequately whilst striking a reasonable balance between national sovereignty and ‘fundamental’ rights. My drafting team was mainly drawn from the staff of the Bears Armed Mission to the WA, but also included Colonel Jacques Chretien of our nation’s regular Army. We split these matters into two potential resolutions, instead of keeping them as a single measure, both because it seemed advisable to separate the ‘Sapient Rights’ clauses from the ‘Moral Decency’ ones in this way and because the need to cover such a range of matters in sufficient detail would have exceeded the maximum length allowed for one proposal by a considerable margin anyway.
Here is the first of those proposals _


RIGHTS ABOUT MILITARY SERVICE

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: The World Assembly,

Understanding that warfare, or at least preparation in case of warfare, is unfortunately an inevitable fact of existence for many nations,

Believing that this fact should not free national governments from the requirements of common decency,

Recognising that some nations may consider it necessary to require compulsory service in their armed forces, whether routinely or only in emergencies,

Understanding that some people may sincerely hold religious or philosophical beliefs that service in armed forces, and possibly even any work that directly supports any nation’s war effort, is morally unacceptable,

Regretting that some nations might treat people who have served in their armed forces with neglect or even disdain;

1. Acknowledges that nations have the right to require that people serve in their armed forces, and may choose whether to use this, subject to the following limitations:
A. The process of conscription into this compulsory service must not involve any form of unfair and unreasonable discrimination;
B. Anybody who can demonstrate that they genuinely believe military service to be morally wrong must be exempted from it, although they may then be required to perform some alternative form of service to their nation instead, and likewise for anybody whose beliefs extend to forbidding even non-military service that directly aids a war effort;
C. Any people who are exempted from any form of compulsory service because of their sincerely-held beliefs must not be punished or discriminated against because of this fact, except that nations do have the right to make such service a prerequisite for holding public office and/or for the possession of voting rights;
D. Member nations may only conscript foreign nationals if conscription is legal in those persons’ own homelands and they have treaties with those nations’ governments that specifically allow this;
E. If anybody conscripted into any member nation’s service has any dependants then that nation must take proper care of those dependents’ welfare during that conscript’s period of service;

2. Declares that nations_
A. May offer one-off ‘enlistment bounty’ payments to volunteers for their armed forces;
B. May allow volunteers more choice than conscripts get about enlisting for specific branches or even units within those forces;
C. May give volunteers preference over conscripts for promotion and/or for training in specialised roles;
D. May not discriminate in any other way against any personnel in those forces for being conscripts rather than volunteers;

3. Declares that wartime recruits should be given at least the same levels of training and equipment that peacetime recruits in the same forces received, unless their countries are in such dire peril that this would clearly not be practicable;

4. Strongly urges all nations to help those persons who have served in their armed forces, whether as volunteers or as conscripts, by:
A. Providing those people with whatever help they require for reintegrating into the civilian community, once that service is over, including financial support for them and for any dependants whom they possess until they no longer need this;
B. Providing full medical care, free of charge, for any injuries and illnesses that were incurred as a result of that service;
C. Providing adequate pensions for any of those people who are no longer capable of earning a living.
D. Promoting a general attitude of respect towards veterans of military service amongst their nations’ inhabitants.

This is already extremely close to the maximum length that’s allowed. Do we need to extend clause #1 by adding a ban on the recruitment of children, or can we safely rely on the existing ‘child protection’ resolution for that purpose?


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.

_________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: Additional text added to clause #1, in blue, to prevent the passage of any future resolution that would actually require the member-nations to use conscription.

The part about "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" has me thinking, what will be done about the conscription of women? Traditionally, only men are eligible for draft, but couldn't a man argue that such a draft falls under the "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" clause?

Also, what should be done about civil war/other internal conflict? Does the revolutionary force have the right to conscript, or is joining the revolutionary force seen purely as an act of treason?

One more thing, do psychological effects of war such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder count as "any injuries that were incurred as a result of that service"?

Other than that, it's good, I'm just trying to think of every possible scenario.

A. May offer one-off ‘enlistment bounty’ payments to volunteers for their armed forces;
Could you explain this?

Do we need to extend clause #1 by adding a ban on the recruitment of children, or can we safely rely on the existing ‘child protection’ resolution for that purpose?
We could probably rely on the existence of Restrictions on Child Labor, yes.

The only thing I truly dislike about this proposal is 1c, where nations are free to limit voting rights or the chance to hold public office for those who conscientiously object to conscription. It practically ensures that these people have no chance of ending conscription in their state through the political process. I shudder at the possibilities of what they might do instead.

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

Aside from Dr. Castro's objection to 1c, which we are also concerned with, our only other concern is the phrasing of this

Believing that this fact should not free national governments from the requirements of common decency,

Perhaps change "requirements of common decency" to "responsibilities to its people". Just an idea

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

1. Acknowledges that nations have the right to require that people serve in their armed forces, subject to the following limitations:

I'm not sure I want to recognise this as a right of the state.

except that nations do have the right to make such service a prerequisite for holding public office and/or for the possession of voting rights;

Again, I'm familiar with the reasoning behind such things, but I don't agree with it and I certainly am not about to agree to legally guarentee the right to practice this.

These two issues stand out, of course, but overall I also cannot see how this advances human rights; in fact, by enshrining the right of the state to conscript people and practice some rather significant forms of discrimination, it seems to go the other way.

Also, would it be inaccurate to suggest that your intention is to block the proposal from Charlotte Ryberg regarding conscientious objection?

The part about "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" has me thinking, what will be done about the conscription of women? Traditionally, only men are eligible for draft, but couldn't a man argue that such a draft falls under the "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" clause?
He certainly could. Whether or not that claim was accepted would presumably require a judgement by their nation’s legal system, which should depend in turn (if decided properly) both on customary views in that culture and on how that legal system was interpreting the ‘Charter of Civil Rights’… And, of course, even if the courts within a particular nation rule that conscription must apply to women as well as to men if it’s to be legal there, cultures in which women have traditionally been seen as ‘nurturers’ rather than ‘warriors’ would probably be fairly willing to accept a high proportion of women declaring themselves as (for that reason) “philosopohically” opposed to performing military service…

Also, what should be done about civil war/other internal conflict? Does the revolutionary force have the right to conscript, or is joining the revolutionary force seen purely as an act of treason?
This proposal only talks about the rights and responsibilities of the WA’s ‘member nations’. It seems unlikely that the WA would accept both a nation’s ‘legal’ government and a rebel movement within that same country as ‘member nations’ simultaneously, so this proposal would therefore presumably apply to only one side in such conflicts. I certainly don’t think that national governments should be obliged to grant rebel factions any legal right to conscript troops, and I rather suspect that most governments would agree with me on this point.

One more thing, do psychological effects of war such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder count as "any injuries that were incurred as a result of that service"?
I’d say yes, but other people might disagree: Anyway, as that clause “Strongly Urges” its effects, rather than “Requires” them, the matter would be left to the separate nations’ governments for decision regardless.

A. May offer one-off ‘enlistment bounty’ payments to volunteers for their armed forces; Could you explain this?
Historically, there have been cases in which governments encouraged people to enlist voluntarily in their armed forces by offering to pay anybody who did volunteer a certain sum of money, or to give them some other reward. This might arguably be seen as discriminating against conscripts into those same forces, but (especially if we we’d like nations to rely on volunteers rather than conscripts) continuing to allow it seems reasonable to me. I might tweak the wording to make it clearer, and specifically to say that that bonus may be payable either at enlistment or at the conclusion of their service (e.g. the old “40 acres and a mule” offer…).

We could probably rely on the existence of Restrictions on Child Labor, yes.That's what I thought, too, but asking for other people's opinions seemed advisable.

The only thing I truly dislike about this proposal is 1c, where nations are free to limit voting rights or the chance to hold public office for those who conscientiously object to conscription. It practically ensures that these people have no chance of ending conscription in their state through the political process.
Please bear it in mind that WA member-nations aren’t obliged to have democratic governments in the first place. If we can tolerate outright dictatorships as fellow members, then why not democracies in which this limit applies as well?
I shudder at the possibilities of what they might do instead.
If those people are genuine ‘conscientious objectors’ then surely the principles that lead them to shun military service because of the violence potentially involved should also lead them to shun violent forms of protest?

Aside from Dr. Castro's objection to 1c, which we are also concerned with, our only other concern is the phrasing of this Believing that this fact should not free national governments from the requirements of common decency,Perhaps change "requirements of common decency" to "responsibilities to its people". Just an idea

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador
I'll consider it, although a number of the governments that are represented here have already made it clear that they feel themselves to be under no responsibilities to their peoples... Then again, such regimes are probably 'lost to common decency', too. Hr'rmm, well this is one of the sorts of things that the drafting process is for...

1. Acknowledges that nations have the right to require that people serve in their armed forces, subject to the following limitations: I'm not sure I want to recognise this as a right of the state.
Your objection is noted, but I currently have no plans to alter this detail of the proposal. As far as I can see, the only practical reason for not guaranteeing the right would be because of an intention to pass a subsequent resolution against it, which is something to which I and my nation’s government would object. One change that I will make, however, is tweak the wording so that no subsequent resolution could require nations to exercise that right.

except that nations do have the right to make such service a prerequisite for holding public office and/or for the possession of voting rights;Again, I'm familiar with the reasoning behind such things, but I don't agree with it and I certainly am not about to agree to legally guarentee the right to practice this.
Your objection is noted, but my own government would be equally opposed to legally forbidding the member-nations’ governments this right. And, after all, we’re not stating that they must do so…

These two issues stand out, of course, but overall I also cannot see how this advances human rights; in fact, by enshrining the right of the state to conscript people and practice some rather significant forms of discrimination, it seems to go the other way.
This proposal would not grant the member nations’ governments any new rights over their peoples, and it would set some limits on the ways in which they could exercise their existing rights. On balance (OOC: and considering the ‘gameplay’ effects on nations’ stats, and previous Mod rulings…), therefore, I still see it as advancing ‘sapient rights’ overall. Whether its effects are only enough to justify a label of ‘Mild’ rather than one of ‘Significant’ for its Strength rating is, however, a point about which I am open to persuasion.
Also, would it be inaccurate to suggest that your intention is to block the proposal from Charlotte Ryberg regarding conscientious objection?
Yes, in my opinion that would be inaccurate: This proposal does offer conscientious objectors almost as much protection as the proposal from Charlotte Ryberg would do (except in the matter of political rights), after all. “Substitute for”, because the ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg has several other projects under work as well, I would accept. “Pre-empt”, given those differences that do exist in the rights offered to conscientious objectors points, would I suppose also be accurate enough. What this proposal would block, of course, are any proposals to ban conscription outright and any attempts to reintroduce legislation substantially identical to the ‘Veterans Reform Act’…

Please bear it in mind that WA member-nations aren’t obliged to have democratic governments in the first place. If we can tolerate outright dictatorships as fellow members, then why not democracies in which this limit applies as well?I can't challenge a nation's sovereign right to choose whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, but I do think it's dangerous to submit to law the right of 'democratic' nations to deny the right to vote to anybody, for any reason other than reasonable age limits and criminal felonious convictions.

It undermines democracy, by giving states the ability to point to international law as an excuse to avoid debate, rather than considering the concerns of the people that elected them.

If those people are genuine ‘conscientious objectors’ then surely the principles that lead them to shun military service because of the violence potentially involved should also lead them to shun violent forms of protest?However, the proposal isn't concerned with why objectors morally object to war. It may have nothing to do with the principles of violence.

That being said, the position of non-violence has not prevented protesters from turning to violence anyways. At least, as the history of Glen-Rhodes is concerned, during the incorporation of the Rhodes Territory in to Glendale.

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

This proposal would not grant the member nations’ governments any new rights over their peoples, and it would set some limits on the ways in which they could exercise their existing rights.

This is the same thing as trying to argue that Freedom of Expression doesn't grant people any new rights because most people already live under states which recognise it.

This resolution categorically would grant states new rights. It grants them "the right to require that people serve in their armed forces". If a state which does not have conscription chose to exercise that right, it would amount to an increase the state's rights, which in this case would necessarily compromise some rather important individual rights. The state would assume the power to expose that person to serious injury or death, and even in peacetime, it denies the person from pursuing any occupation other than military service - and let's not pretend this is a trivial thing because it isn't.

Enshrining the right of states to conscript people is an advance of state rights at the necessary expense of peoples' rights and so calling this a Human Rights resolution is doubtful at best. This isn't the only reason though:

This proposal does offer conscientious objectors almost as much protection as the proposal from Charlotte Ryberg would do (except in the matter of political rights)

The critical difference, however, between that one and this one is the allowance of discrimination through the denial of political rights to objectors, which, again, leads us to question how this proposal can be said to be advancing human/sapient rights. In fact, referring to the record, you found it so objectionable that it was enough for you to find the whole thing "unacceptable". Given that, I doubt you can be convinced to remove the offending provision and so I don't think we can support your proposal in any way, particularly since it would block a far more agreeable proposal.

criminal felonious convictions.

And I'm against denying them the vote, even, which should tell you just how uncomfortable I am with allowing (democratic) nations to deny people such a right in such a discriminatory way. This amounts to discrimination on the basis of personal belief, whether it is a moral, political, or religious one and the World Assembly should not endorse this.

This is the same thing as trying to argue that Freedom of Expression doesn't grant people any new rights because most people already live under states which recognise it.

This resolution categorically would grant states new rights. It grants them "the right to require that people serve in their armed forces". If a state which does not have conscription chose to exercise that right, it would amount to an increase the state's rights, which in this case would necessarily compromise some rather important individual rights. The state would assume the power to expose that person to serious injury or death, and even in peacetime, it denies the person from pursuing any occupation other than military service - and let's not pretend this is a trivial thing because it isn't.

Enshrining the right of states to conscript people is an advance of state rights at the necessary expense of peoples' rights and so calling this a Human Rights resolution is doubtful at best.

Okay, I have to say, somewhat in defence, that this is a bit iffy. I say this because it would be a given that any state that has control over their citizens, IE non-democratic, would have automatic conscription anyway. In democratic nations, on the other hand, the government would probably have their asses handed to them, pardon my Frosbitarian, should they try conscription, even if they pointed to this as a basis

Looking back and re-reading clause 1.C. we withdraw our objection to it, just ask that you re-write it. I understand your sentiments, but fear some others may have blown it out of proportion. You are trying to acknowledge and respect the right of nations who require some form of military service in order for residents to be classified as citizens and be given the right to vote/hold office (OOC: Starship Troopers is a good RL reference for this). Perhaps a clarification as to this effect would be in order.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Okay, I have to say, somewhat in defence, that this is a bit iffy.

True, I concede that it's not completely accurate to argue that it isn't a human rights proposal just because it gives states certain powers. However, the point I feel is most important is that including such assumptions like "nations have the right to require that people serve in their armed forces" in a WA resolution implicitly endorses it and more importantly may block any future resolution which would advance personal rights against rights of the state in this matter.

In this sense, while I concede that the case that this particular proposal is against human rights is not a watertight one, I maintain that it is to the detriment of human rights as it blocks progress on this issue.

If it is not the intent of this proposal to enshrine this "right to require that people serve in their armed forces" of states, as the current wording suggests, I would suggest using more neutral expression, such as "observes that some states require that people serve in their armed forces".

I say this because it would be a given that any state that has control over their citizens, IE non-democratic, would have automatic conscription anyway.

Uh... no. There are many authoritarian states (yes, even IRL) which don't have automatic conscription, while many democratic states have conscripted people at some point in their history, and many democratic states maintain "national service" conscription even in peacetime (and we're talking very peaceful states here, such as Sweden, Finland and Switzerland).

You are trying to acknowledge and respect the right of nations who require some form of military service in order for residents to be classified as citizens and be given the right to vote/hold office (OOC: Starship Troopers is a good RL reference for this). Perhaps a clarification as to this effect would be in order.

However, we do not believe that such discriminatory, disenfranchising treatment of people who simply are expressing their rights to hold and exercise moral or political beliefs should be permitted. I'm not sure it's unclear, as the author of the resolution has stated explicitly in the discussion of a similar proposal that they believe this should be allowed:

The government of Bears Armed, and the governments of several of the actual Confederated Clans, join the government of New Illuve in objecting to the idea that any people who refuse to help defend their homeland must be granted the same political rights as those who are willing to serve in that way... that point would make it unacceptable to us.

True, I concede that it's not completely accurate to argue that it isn't a human rights proposal just because it gives states certain powers. However, the point I feel is most important is that including such assumptions like "nations have the right to require that people serve in their armed forces" in a WA resolution implicitly endorses it and more importantly may block any future resolution which would advance personal rights against rights of the state in this matter.

In this sense, while I concede that the case that this particular proposal is against human rights is not a watertight one, I maintain that it is to the detriment of human rights as it blocks progress on this issue.

If it is not the intent of this proposal to enshrine this "right to require that people serve in their armed forces" of states, as the current wording suggests, I would suggest using more neutral expression, such as "observes that some states require that people serve in their armed forces".



Uh... no. There are many authoritarian states (yes, even IRL) which don't have automatic conscription, while many democratic states have conscripted people at some point in their history, and many democratic states maintain "national service" conscription even in peacetime (and we're talking very peaceful states here, such as Sweden, Finland and Switzerland).I will answer this block together, because the parts you are replying to were supposed to be together. To me, if it were to enshrine that right there would be a whole section on enshrining that right, stating it is a right that cant be taken away, yada yada. But yeah, I do concede on that point your rewording is perhaps a better alternative. On the case of conscription, I guess I was a bit murky in my reply there. In the case of National Service, when it came to my reply it was more a case of thinking about nations using this as an excuse to implement something, rather than nations that already have national service in place. as for the authoritarian states, I guess a better rephrase of my comment is that they, in the most, they automatically expect citizens to serve in the time of war.



However, we do not believe that such discriminatory, disenfranchising treatment of people who simply are expressing their rights to hold and exercise moral or political beliefs should be permitted. I'm not sure it's unclear, as the author of the resolution has stated explicitly in the discussion of a similar proposal that they believe this should be allowed:We can actually understand both sides here. Whilst I dont believe in nations using passed resolutions as the basis to enact things post the passing, I also feel, at least in this case, in respecting things that are already in place. It is a tricky issue, that is true, but for us it is kind of finding a fine balance

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I can't challenge a nation's sovereign right to choose whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, but I do think it's dangerous to submit to law the right of 'democratic' nations to deny the right to vote to anybody, for any reason other than reasonable age limits and criminal felonious convictions.Whereas I think that the term 'Democracy' is capable of being applied to a range of differing situations, rather than to only one pattern. How do you feel about the existence of constitutional monarchies, or of legislatures that have elected 'lower' houses but whose 'upper houses' include the leaders of a 'national' church (on an 'ex officio' basis) and hereditary peers sitting alongside political appointees, for example?

It undermines democracy, by giving states the ability to point to international law as an excuse to avoid debate, rather than considering the concerns of the people that elected them.Oh? If those governments already had such a law in place then the people whose concerns this allows them to ignore already had no say in electing them...

However, the proposal isn't concerned with why objectors morally object to war. It may have nothing to do with the principles of violence.What other legitimate reasons could they have, bearing in mind that this applies to military service in general rather than to service in specific wars? If it's a belief that the government shouldn't be allowed to conscript people, then why should such a belief be legally privileged above beliefs that compulsory taxation is wrong, or that obeying the code of criminal law should be optional? If you choose to live in a country (and I do support a legal right of emigration...) then you have to accept its government's decisions, as long as those are legally valid, unless & until they get changed through the proper channels.
Unless you can come up with a convincing argument to the contrary, I'll alter the wording to make it clear that the only right of conscientious objection it recognises is because of violence... but I might also add a sub-clause that would allow people who are ideologically opposed to "wars of aggression" to accept military conscription "for home defence only"...

That being said, the position of non-violence has not prevented protesters from turning to violence anyways. At least, as the history of Glen-Rhodes is concerned, during the incorporation of the Rhodes Territory in to Glendale.Then they're hypocrites, and their self-proclaimed reason for objecting to conscription is clearly no longer valid...

This is the same thing as trying to argue that Freedom of Expression doesn't grant people any new rights because most people already live under states which recognise it.

This resolution categorically would grant states new rights. It grants them "the right to require that people serve in their armed forces". If a state which does not have conscription chose to exercise that right, it would amount to an increase the state's rights, which in this case would necessarily compromise some rather important individual rights. The state would assume the power to expose that person to serious injury or death, and even in peacetime, it denies the person from pursuing any occupation other than military service - and let's not pretend this is a trivial thing because it isn't.

Enshrining the right of states to conscript people is an advance of state rights at the necessary expense of peoples' rights and so calling this a Human Rights resolution is doubtful at best.
What?!?
*(pauses)*
Wait a minute, you seem to be reading the first line of clause #1 differently from how I intended... but, looking at it in this light, I can see that the ambiguity of meaning is genuine. Oops! To clarify, what I intended that clause to recognise wasn't "conscription is now legal in all WA member-nations", it was just "WA member-nations can pass laws instituting conscription"... thus blocking any proposals that might try to ban conscription outright. I'll alter the wording to clarify this point. Hr'rmm, and we need to ensure that this clause wouldn't over-ride any constitutional bans that some nations might have against the process (without leaving a loophole that would let proposals make a ban on it part of all member-nations' constitutions) too...

The critical difference, however, between that one and this one is the allowance of discrimination through the denial of political rights to objectors, which, again, leads us to question how this proposal can be said to be advancing human/sapient rights. How about because it prohibits all other forms of discrimination against conscientious objectors, forms that could currently (depending on those nations' existing laws), be 'perfectly' legal?
In fact, referring to the record, you found it so objectionable that it was enough for you to find the whole thing "unacceptable". Given that, I doubt you can be convinced to remove the offending provision Correct. and so I don't think we can support your proposal in any way, particularly since it would block a far more agreeable proposal.So we'll have to agree to disagree.

And I'm against denying them the vote, even, which should tell you just how uncomfortable I am with allowing (democratic) nations to deny people such a right in such a discriminatory way.Again, I and my nation's government disagree with you.
This amounts to discrimination on the basis of personal belief, whether it is a moral, political, or religious one and the World Assembly should not endorse this.As I've already pointed out to ambassador of Glen-Rhodes, given that the World Assembly condones (by allowing them membership) the existence of dictatorships, one-party states, theocracies, feudal cultures, and so on, suggesting that it should then reject any democracies whose forms of democracy aren't quite as pure as you'd like seems decidedly hypocritical... and also, because it would reduce the proportion of democratic nations in the membership and thus probably affect the likelihood of certain types of resolution passing, rather a case of "cutting off one's muzzle to spite one's face"...

Looking back and re-reading clause 1.C. we withdraw our objection to it, just ask that you re-write it. I understand your sentiments, but fear some others may have blown it out of proportion. You are trying to acknowledge and respect the right of nations who require some form of military service in order for residents to be classified as citizens and be given the right to vote/hold office (OOC: Starship Troopers is a good RL reference for this). Perhaps a clarification as to this effect would be in order.I'll see what we can do along those lines.

"Sigh!" I suspect that clause #3 may have to be sacrificed, in order to free-up the necessary number of characters for the changes that I've already mentioned. Oh well, maybe it will be possible to fit this into our other proposal on military service when we come to draft that...

Looking back and re-reading clause 1.C. we withdraw our objection to it, just ask that you re-write it. I understand your sentiments, but fear some others may have blown it out of proportion. You are trying to acknowledge and respect the right of nations who require some form of military service in order for residents to be classified as citizens and be given the right to vote/hold office (OOC: Starship Troopers is a good RL reference for this). Perhaps a clarification as to this effect would be in order.

We, and I'm sure plenty of others out there share this ideal, believe that nations have no such right to deny anybody the right to participate in the democratic process, no matter if they are under a democratic or dictatorial government.

Democracy bases itself largely on the value of the individual, while emphasizing the importance of equality. Extending the right of conscientious objection is certainly valuing an individual's moral or ethical beliefs, but denying them participation in their government based on those beliefs is diminishing the importance of equality, and is simply discrimination.

That being said, the Charter of Civil Rights protects against this action with following clause --
b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.
-- which states that even conscientious objectors are entitled to the rights of those that serve in armed forces, unless those that serve don't have the right to vote or run for public office in the first place.

If that isn't enough, the very next clause prevents discrimination based on "religion or belief system[s]" (such as ethical beliefs, e.g secular humanism):
c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system [emphasis added], sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Like I side earlier, this is really our only major concern with the legislation.

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

That being said, the Charter of Civil Rights protects against this action with following clause -- b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present. -- which states that even conscientious objectors are entitled to the rights of those that serve in armed forces, unless those that serve don't have the right to vote or run for public office in the first place.No, it doesn't. What that clause does say that people must be protected from arbitrary, illegal discrimination... but it doesn't prevent the laws about conscientious objectors being different from the laws on military veterans.

If that isn't enough, the very next clause prevents discrimination based on "religion or belief system[s]" (such as ethical beliefs, e.g secular humanism):But, as the representatives here of the government that wrote that resolution themsleves made clear during the debate on its terms, forbidding discrimination based on the possession of certain beliefs does not forbid prohibiting -- or punishing -- actions that are inspired by those beliefs. On the one paw this applies to (for example) a belief in the sacrifice of sapient beings to a deity, but on the other paw I think that it could quite clearly apply here too.
And then that clause alows exemptions for "compelling practical purposes" anyway, and I rather think that encouraging people to serve in their homeland's defence could be justified in those terms...

But, as the representatives here of the government that wrote that resolution themsleves made clear during the debate on its terms, forbidding discrimination based on the possession of certain beliefs does not forbid prohibiting -- or punishing -- actions that are inspired by those beliefs. On the one paw this applies to (for example) a belief in the sacrifice of sapient beings to a deity, but on the other paw I think that it could quite clearly apply here too.
And then that clause alows exemptions for "compelling practical purposes" anyway, and I rather think that encouraging people to serve in their homeland's defence could be justified in those terms...

By this explanation, as contorted an explanation it is, I cannot support any facet of this legislation, as it is written by a delegation that is attempting to undermine the principles of democracy with a dubious explanation that only beliefs themselves are protected under discrimination law, but the practice of those beliefs, even when they don't violate any common law, is not.

Out of courtesy, I won't crusade against the legislation during the early stages of drafting, and will attempt to keep further comments purely legal in stance. I encourage other, less busy delegations to take up the cause, if they wish. Sadly, the international union of which Glen-Rhodes is a member is having yet another dissolution of government, and diplomacy is direly needed there.

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

What other legitimate reasons could they have, bearing in mind that this applies to military service in general rather than to service in specific wars?

Military service is by its nature specifically geared towards participation in war. There's not much use for a military which isn't meant to fight. In my opinion, of course, "I don't want to" is a legitimate reason.

If it's a belief that the government shouldn't be allowed to conscript people, then why should such a belief be legally privileged above beliefs that compulsory taxation is wrong, or that obeying the code of criminal law should be optional?

Well, with conscription, you're going to be at risk of serious injury or death at the will of the state. I don't see how the same would be the case if you pay your taxes or abide by the law. Unless you require taxes to be paid in the blood of newborn infants, hand-delivered to a location deep in the primeval jungle infested with tigers and teeming with poisonous snakes, requiring the fording of crocodile infested rivers... and in that case I'd probably say it's okay not to pay your taxes too.

I suppose we're getting into philosophical terrain here, but it does seem like you're advocating that the state gets unquestioned power and anyone who objects to what it does should find another state to live under. That's... not very nice and I hope I'm wrong about that.

If you choose to live in a country (and I do support a legal right of emigration...) then you have to accept its government's decisions, as long as those are legally valid,

How many people really, practically, get a choice of which country they live in? The vast majority of people happen to be born in some nation by chance and they then live there the rest of their lives. And just because you have the right to emigration doesn't mean you have the ability to.

And to keep things on the subject, I should point out that many countries with conscription take rather extensive measures specifically to prevent people from emigrating to avoid conscription. Doing as you suggest; leaving the country, is not possible for these people.

but I might also add a sub-clause that would allow people who are ideologically opposed to "wars of aggression" to accept military conscription "for home defence only"...

...I take it you don't see the gaping loophole and potential for abuse in taking this approach?

Unless you can come up with a convincing argument to the contrary, I'll alter the wording to make it clear that the only right of conscientious objection it recognises is because of violence

...

Then they're hypocrites, and their self-proclaimed reason for objecting to conscription is clearly no longer valid...

Perhaps it's not violence per se, but war? War, as a state-directed, systematic murder-spree which inevitably results in the deaths, injury, displacement, and other troubling things towards innocent civillians, is quite a distinct thing from getting angry and overexcited at a protest march.

thus blocking any proposals that might try to ban conscription outright. I'll alter the wording to clarify this point.

Okay, you see, that is why I'm opposed to it.

Hr'rmm, and we need to ensure that this clause wouldn't over-ride any constitutional bans that some nations might have against the process (without leaving a loophole that would let proposals make a ban on it part of all member-nations' constitutions) too...

I don't think you need to, because simply "observing" that something is being done neither endorses nor denigrates it, in my understanding, therefore it would not be an effective clause. If you're still trying to actively block any ban on conscription, though, well, that's your problem really.

How about because it prohibits all other forms of discrimination against conscientious objectors, forms that could currently (depending on those nations' existing laws), be 'perfectly' legal?

I'm supposed to vote for and support something I disagree with because it's not as bad as it could be?

As I've already pointed out to ambassador of Glen-Rhodes, given that the World Assembly condones (by allowing them membership) the existence of dictatorships, one-party states, theocracies, feudal cultures, and so on, suggesting that it should then reject any democracies whose forms of democracy aren't quite as pure as you'd like seems decidedly hypocritical... and also, because it would reduce the proportion of democratic nations in the membership and thus probably affect the likelihood of certain types of resolution passing, rather a case of "cutting off one's muzzle to spite one's face"...


So because we have authoritarian or undemocratic states as members we should give up trying to improve the standards of human rights and democracy through resolutions? This has nothing to do with systems of government and everything to do with ensuring that we don't end up enshrining a rather odious form of discrimination in international law.

By the way, seen the Charter of Civil Rights?

Overall I think I would be in favour, however parts 4 c & d worry me. They appear to be interference in the workings of the welfare state and media in the countries of the World Assembly.

part d states that "Promoting a general attitude of respect towards veterans of military service amongst their nations’ inhabitants." which a conscientious objector in the media or government may struggle to find morally adaptable.

In reference to c I worry that in a state with slim resources this may not be possible and seems to put veterens above other retired groups, again morally questionable. I would have to agree with the right to healthcare for injured soldiers because it was the state which (indirectly) caused the injury. However for future governments to have to pay for retired veterens is a seperate matter and in my belief should not be considered part of this Act.

Other than that, apart from possible rewording (which has already been expressed) I would be in full support of this treaty.

Olev Kalspritz
WA Representative

The Kelssek delegation has ably voiced our most serious concerns at this proposal.

In addition, we find ourselves somewhat ambivolent towards section 4. One of the few respects in which conscripts and volunteers differ is that conscripts had a job to be returned to; a job which is unlikely to have remained available for them, a job for which their skills may now be outdated, and in short a much more serious situation which they did not choose to have thrust upon them than is the case for volunteers. Under those circumstances, and despite our distaste for the previous legislation on the subject, merely "strongly urging" proper assistance for conscripts returning to civilian life seems a little feeble.

We remain unconvinced that this topic is one that should be handled at an international level. We would prefer the WA to stay out of it and let the individual nations handle it as they see fit.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Sadly we would oppose any resolution like this other than the right of conscientious objection which I am drafting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=577870) at the moment. Although we do not have conscription, we believe that a country has a right to defend itself in any way.

We still like you for trying anyway. Finding out which ones work and which ones don't by trial and error helps us.

Yours,

There is now a new draft for this proposal posted, above the original one, in this thread’s opening post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14488901&postcount=1).


But, as the representatives here of the government that wrote that resolution themsleves made clear during the debate on its terms, forbidding discrimination based on the possession of certain beliefs does not forbid prohibiting -- or punishing -- actions that are inspired by those beliefs. On the one paw this applies to (for example) a belief in the sacrifice of sapient beings to a deity, but on the other paw I think that it could quite clearly apply here too.
And then that clause allows exemptions for "compelling practical purposes" anyway, and I rather think that encouraging people to serve in their homeland's defence could be justified in those terms...
By this explanation, as contorted an explanation it is, I cannot support any facet of this legislation, as it is written by a delegation that is attempting to undermine the principles of democracy with a dubious explanation that only beliefs themselves are protected under discrimination law, but the practice of those beliefs, even when they don't violate any common law, is not.
“Contorted”? Surely it’s simple enough: The right to hold beliefs is protected, the right to do something that those beliefs say you should but that wouldn’t be considered legal locally if done for any other reason isn’t. And, as you seem somehow to have missed this part of my earlier explanation, that interpretation of the ‘Charter of Civil Rights’ was previously put forwards by one of the representatives here of that resolution’s very own authors. During the public drafting stage for that law, one of the objections that several diplomats from various other nations raised to its terms was the suggestion that having to tolerate people holding whatever beliefs they chose could mean having to tolerate human sacrifice, paedophilia, genocide, or other forms of unpleasantness, if anybody believed such acts to be ‘correct’… and it was one of the Urgenchi WA mission’s members themselves who pointed out that having to tolerate people holding whatever beliefs they might favour did not mean having to tolerate those people performing any actions inspired by those beliefs that would already be illegal if carried out for non-ideological reasons instead. And if that applies in the case of actions such as the ones that I’ve just listed here then logically it also applies in the cases of actions that some ‘liberals’ might find less objectionable — such as refusing to assist in the defence of one’s homeland — too.
To whose ‘common law’ are you referring here, by the way? There certainly hasn’t been a full-scale legal code established through any WA resolution, and refusing to perform ‘national service’ when that duty is a legal obligation under the relevant nation’s laws clearly wouldn’t (at least in most nations, I feel fairly safe in presuming…) be against the relevant national law-code either. Are you trying to claim that your nation’s laws should automatically apply within all WA member-nations, without needing to be passed as resolutions?

What other legitimate reasons could they have, bearing in mind that this applies to military service in general rather than to service in specific wars? Military service is by its nature specifically geared towards participation in war. There's not much use for a military which isn't meant to fight.
So you regard defending one’s homeland against foreign attackers as just as wrongful an action as launching wars of aggression?!? Do you really fail to realise that the possession of armed forces can deter attacks? As a wise human once said, “If you would have Peace, prepare for War.”
Do your nation’s people generally consider it against their principles to fight back against any invaders — now matter how savage those might be — and is it only good fortune that historically has kept your nation from being over-run and swept out of existence?!? What a fortunate country… but such a history has evidently left you incapable of understanding the needs of those nations and peoples that have been less blessed in that way by the Great Bear. I can assure you that stripping oneself of defensive capabilities does not in some way miraculously render one immune to assault... and that the people of a nation that is under the threat of imminent attack are likely to be more open to the idea of raising armed forces than you seem to be.
In my opinion, of course, "I don't want to" is a legitimate reason.And does your nation’s government fully share this belief, too?

“I don’t want to.” I see. So, when a person’s homeland is threatened by some militaristic foreign power, that seeks to overthrow the native government and impose a tyrannical puppet-regime, you would regard it as acceptable to say “You go and defend us, and our families, and our way of life, please do, but I don’t feel like risking my own skin so I’ll just stay here and enjoy life behind your shield... and maybe profit from your absence, in one or more ways, too..” and for the person saying that to retain as much say in the future governance of the country as those of their neighbours who do accept the challenge receive?!? Bears aren’t noted for being particularly selfless, but even to me your suggestion looks like a licence for a disgusting level of selfishness!

I suppose we're getting into philosophical terrain here, but it does seem like you're advocating that the state gets unquestioned power and anyone who objects to what it does should find another state to live under. That's... not very nice and I hope I'm wrong about that.
No, I’m hardly advocating that! I’m fairly sure that the government has less power over people in Bears Armed than is the case in quite a high proportion of the World Assembly’s other members… but if one lives in a society then how is one not obliged to follow what laws it has? Especially if that is a society with a democratic government, like ours, and the government is therefore expressing the wishes of a majority of the people amongst whom one lives?

If you choose to live in a country (and I do support a legal right of emigration...) then you have to accept its government's decisions, as long as those are legally valid, How many people really, practically, get a choice of which country they live in? The vast majority of people happen to be born in some nation by chance and they then live there the rest of their lives. And just because you have the right to emigration doesn't mean you have the ability to.

And to keep things on the subject, I should point out that many countries with conscription take rather extensive measures specifically to prevent people from emigrating to avoid conscription. Doing as you suggest; leaving the country, is not possible for these people.There are potential problems, yes. On the other paw, there are potential problems with the alternative (of having only voluntary service), too. We'll just have to see how the WA resolution on emigration rights works...

but I might also add a sub-clause that would allow people who are ideologically opposed to "wars of aggression" to accept military conscription "for home defence only"... ...I take it you don't see the gaping loophole and potential for abuse in taking this approach? If people can prove that their religious or philosophical beliefs prevent their willing participation in armed action, and false claims along those lines can be disproven, as the other rules about ‘conscientious objection’ suggest is the case, then shouldn’t sorting out the genuine from the false in this potential situation too be harder only by a difference of degree rather than one of kind? However, as you’ll see if you read the new draft (which is now above the original one in this thread’s opening post…), I’ve dropped this idea. What I’m currently suggesting should be allowed for people whose beliefs allow ‘home defence’ but not wars of aggression is that they should be allowed to join units that are guaranteed not to get sent abroad if they enlist voluntarily instead. That would be a much simpler way to handle matters…
Unless you can come up with a convincing argument to the contrary, I'll alter the wording to make it clear that the only right of conscientious objection it recognises is because of violence...
Then they're hypocrites, and their self-proclaimed reason for objecting to conscription is clearly no longer valid... Perhaps it's not violence per se, but war? War, as a state-directed, systematic murder-spree which inevitably results in the deaths, injury, displacement, and other troubling things towards innocent civillians, is quite a distinct thing from getting angry and overexcited at a protest march. Leaving aside the question of whether the term “murder” is really appropriate in this context, given that that is normally (as far as I’m aware) defined as only covering “unlawful” killing whereas the killing of enemy combatants in wars is generally regarded as legal instead, you seem to be ignoring (again!) the possibility that one side in a war will be acting in self-defence rather than out of self-aggrandisement… and the rest of your suggested reason, apart from the "state-directed" bit, would seem to fit within the "violence" reason anyway...
And people “getting angry and overexcited at a protest march” is something about which neither I nor my government is particularly worried; what the ambassador from Glen-Rhodes seemed to be hinting at — and I was decrying as hypocritical, if it occurred — was that those people might turn to terrorism as a way of trying to change government policies…

As I've already pointed out to ambassador of Glen-Rhodes, given that the World Assembly condones (by allowing them membership) the existence of dictatorships, one-party states, theocracies, feudal cultures, and so on, suggesting that it should then reject any democracies whose forms of democracy aren't quite as pure as you'd like seems decidedly hypocritical... and also, because it would reduce the proportion of democratic nations in the membership and thus probably affect the likelihood of certain types of resolution passing, rather a case of "cutting off one's muzzle to spite one's face"... So because we have authoritarian or undemocratic states as members we should give up trying to improve the standards of human rights and democracy through resolutions?And just how would it do that? Do you really think that, confronted with a demand to change their constitutional arrangements, the governments of any WA member-nations in which ‘national service’ is already a legal prerequisite for such rights in political matters will blithely say “Oh, what a brilliant idea, why on Earth didn’t we think of that ages ago?” and accept the change? It’s much more likely, in my opinion, that they’d be deeply annoyed at this attempted meddling and simply leave the Assembly instead. After all, on the basis of the resolutions that have been passed so far, the benefits of membership to those governments aren’t exactly so great that the prospect of losing them would really be a serious deterrent to walking out… And if those governments do leave then, obviously, that would make passing (or voting-down) any future proposals on which they would have[/i] agreed [i]with you if they were still members more difficult…
This has nothing to do with systems of government and everything to do with ensuring that we don't end up enshrining a rather odious form of discrimination in international law.
“Odious” is a matter of opinion: We disagree.

By the way, seen the Charter of Civil Rights?
Yes, of course I have. Didn’t you see my reply to the ambassador from Glen-Rhodes, when he suggested that that resolution would render this policy illegal?

Overall I think I would be in favour, however parts 4 c & d worry me. They appear to be interference in the workings of the welfare state and media in the countries of the World Assembly.

part d states that "Promoting a general attitude of respect towards veterans of military service amongst their nations’ inhabitants." which a conscientious objector in the media or government may struggle to find morally adaptable.

In reference to c I worry that in a state with slim resources this may not be possible and seems to put veterens above other retired groups, again morally questionable. I would have to agree with the right to healthcare for injured soldiers because it was the state which (indirectly) caused the injury. However for future governments to have to pay for retired veterens is a seperate matter and in my belief should not be considered part of this Act.

Other than that, apart from possible rewording (which has already been expressed) I would be in full support of this treaty.

Olev Kalspritz
WA Representative
The fact that that entire clause (formerly #4, now #3) only “urges” rather than actually “requires” the listed actions means that any nations who face problems such as you describe wouldn’t actually have to do such things. Using “urges” as the main verb in an ‘operational’ clause only means “We think that this would be a nice idea if you can manage it”…

The Kelssek delegation has ably voiced our most serious concerns at this proposal.
Those being?
If it’s the recognition of nations’ rights to legislate for conscription then we’ll have to agree to differ: If it’s the idea of making military service a legal prerequisite for political rights, then may I point out that the ambassador from Kelssek (and, I think, the government that he represents here) would presumably object to your nation’s version of democracy — which might not include this factor, but does (unless it’s been changed recently?) make membership in a limited range of families a legal prerequisite for holding ministerial rank — too?

In addition, we find ourselves somewhat ambivolent towards section 4. One of the few respects in which conscripts and volunteers differ is that conscripts had a job to be returned to; a job which is unlikely to have remained available for them, a job for which their skills may now be outdated, and in short a much more serious situation which they did not choose to have thrust upon them than is the case for volunteers. Under those circumstances, and despite our distaste for the previous legislation on the subject, merely "strongly urging" proper assistance for conscripts returning to civilian life seems a little feeble.
__________________
Prince Rhodri Mawr, Master of the Red Hounds of Segontium,
speaking for the Gobbannaen Principalities
Hr’rrm, I scent what you’re arguing but I’m not sure that I agree with you about this. It seems likely to me that nations most where ‘national service’ is a routine feature would probably conscript people as fairly young adults, for just a year or three, before they’d got very far into any career; and if that is what happens then I think that those conscripts would probably find re-entering civilian life easier than any volunteers who’d just finished [for example] two-eights or three-eights of years in the forces… Any people who might get “called-up” into their nations’ armed forces if & when mass conscription seemed necessary due to a ‘World War’ or another event on that sort of scale probably would have the problems that you’re talking about, I agree, but then in situations like that there might well have been a surge in voluntary enlistment “for the duration” too and those veterans would have similar problems afterwards to the ex-conscript ones. I might be open to some persuasion on this matter, although I and my government would really like to keep this measure fairly ‘sovereignty-friendly’, but the maximum length allowed for proposals severely limits the extent of any additions that I could make. I have, however, changed the wording from “Strongly urges” to “Emphatically urges” as an initial step…

We remain unconvinced that this topic is one that should be handled at an international level. We would prefer the WA to stay out of it and let the individual nations handle it as they see fit.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
If we could absolutely count on the Assembly leaving the matter alone then I and my government would probably agree with you about this, but recent evidence suggests that we can not rely on that being the case. This proposal is therefore intended to cover the matters concerned in a reasonably ‘sovereignty-friendly’ manner in order to pre-empt any more “intrusive” legislation.

Sadly we would oppose any resolution like this other than the right of conscientious objection which I am drafting at the moment. Although we do not have conscription, we believe that a country has a right to defend itself in any way.
Fair enough. We couldn’t accept the current version of your proposal, either.


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.

I would highly recommend that in the clause prohibiting discrimination in conscription that you clarify, or add an addition, similar to my failed, and mildly hated proposal (but I'm sure yours wouldn't be), The Declaration of Masculism Rights, which read....

Prohibits the usage of military conscription that is gender specific.

It's time we set the record straight with gender equality.
Other than that, you're proposal seems like a worthy opportunity for the assembly.
Bravo.

3. EMPHATICALLY urges all nations to help all people who have served in their armed forces, whether as volunteers or as conscripts, by:
A. Providing those people with whatever help they require for re-entering civilian life, once that service is over, including financial support for them and for any dependants whom they possess until they no longer need this;
B. Providing full medical care, free of charge, for any injuries and illnesses that were incurred due to that service;
C. Providing adequate pensions for any of those people who are no longer capable of earning a living;
D. Promoting a general attitude of respect towards the current and past members of those forces amongst their nations’ peoples.

Amendment to Item 3:

Letter C. Providing adequate pensions for any of those people who are no longer capable of earning a living; and providing pensions to those who are capable to work, but can not find. Those pensions shall last a maximum of 3 years.

Ambassador to World Assembly from Queenslandburg
Que Thomas

So you regard defending one’s homeland against foreign attackers as just as wrongful an action as launching wars of aggression?!? Do you really fail to realise that the possession of armed forces can deter attacks? As a wise human once said, “If you would have Peace, prepare for War.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question of conscription! You're presuming that no one will voluntarily enlist if they didn't have to. Furthermore, as one state's "defending one's homeland" is another state's "war of aggression" this kind of reasoning just doesn't hold up. It is absolutely never so black-and-white as that.

Do your nation’s people generally consider it against their principles to fight back against any invaders — now matter how savage those might be — and is it only good fortune that historically has kept your nation from being over-run and swept out of existence?!? What a fortunate country…

No, but it is against our principles and our laws to force someone into the armed forces who does not want to. Furthermore, opposition to war is not the same as total pacifism.

but such a history has evidently left you incapable of understanding the needs of those nations and peoples that have been less blessed in that way by the Great Bear. I can assure you that stripping oneself of defensive capabilities does not in some way miraculously render one immune to assault... and that the people of a nation that is under the threat of imminent attack are likely to be more open to the idea of raising armed forces than you seem to be.

Now this really is getting into straw-man, or straw-bear if you prefer... hmm, I want some strawberries...

"Eric, for the love of..."

Sorry. Anyway, you are acting as if by not passing this resolution, or by not conscripting citizens, states would have no defences. That's obviously untrue. How on earth does not conscripting people, or even conscripting but recognising conscientious objection and not disenfranchising people for it, equate to "stripping oneself of defensive capabilities"? This is a really puzzling series of non sequiturs; what you're saying just doesn't follow.

And does your nation’s government fully share this belief, too?

I can't speak for all our governments, but the current one has not shown any inclination to conscript people.

“I don’t want to.” I see. So, when a person’s homeland is threatened by some militaristic foreign power, that seeks to overthrow the native government and impose a tyrannical puppet-regime, you would regard it as acceptable to say “You go and defend us, and our families, and our way of life, please do, but I don’t feel like risking my own skin so I’ll just stay here and enjoy life behind your shield... and maybe profit from your absence, in one or more ways, too..” and for the person saying that to retain as much say in the future governance of the country as those of their neighbours who do accept the challenge receive?!?

Do you honestly regard actual participation in war, in the form of joining the military, as the only valid way to contribute to your nation or to serve the state which governs it? I suppose your people disdain all those who worked in the factories, who were already in the police, fire or other civil services, all those selfish doctors who stayed behind in their safe climate-controlled hospitals while the real patriots went out onto the front lines...

Even in the case of your extreme caricature, though, we would have to answer yes. If a state or a nation can so alienate its own people that they completely refuse to do anything to preserve it when it is existentially threatened, it probably doesn't merit continued existence anyway.

Bears aren’t noted for being particularly selfless, but even to me your suggestion looks like a licence for a disgusting level of selfishness!

We call it respect for individual rights. Ironically we're usually criticised for the opposite.

but if one lives in a society then how is one not obliged to follow what laws it has? Especially if that is a society with a democratic government, like ours, and the government is therefore expressing the wishes of a majority of the people amongst whom one lives?

Democracy is another way of saying "tyranny of the majority". Pure democracy can in fact be very oppressive, and that is why many states enshrine certain civil, legal, and political rights in constitutions so that the right to be an individual is protected and that minorities don't become systematically ostracised. Surely you agree that the very nature of what we commonly understand as "democracy" demands the right to oppose the majority.

whereas the killing of enemy combatants in wars is generally regarded as legal... and the rest of your suggested reason, apart from the "state-directed" bit, would seem to fit within the "violence" reason anyway...

As I believe you are aware, that is only because a widely-recognised sovereign state has approved it. If it were not endorsed by such an entity, it would definitively be murder, or even considered terrorism - but this is getting dangerously off-topic.

instead, you seem to be ignoring (again!) the possibility that one side in a war will be acting in self-defence rather than out of self-aggrandisement…

This black and white categorisation falls down in reality. While it may be possible to make such classifications on certain select conflicts with the benefit of historical research, the issues under discussion have to be considered before or during the actual conflicts, when such determinations are almost completely impossible. Even in historical hindsight it can be difficult, what more of ongoing conflicts?

[Let me illustrate. How do you categorise wars of independence in this way? Are they self-defence of the people ruled by colonial states, or aggression against lawful rulers? Was Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union self-defence against the massive ideologically-opposed power on his borders, or aggression against a people he viewed as sub-human? Who was the aggressor in the War of 1812, the Americans or the British? Who was the aggressor in World War I, and who was fighting in self-defence? Were the Americans defending their homeland in the Korean War? Was Israel the aggressor in the Six-Day War, or was that self-defence? As I hope you see from these examples, even years later it's impossible to fit wars into such narrow black-and-white categories, let alone ongoing wars: was the 2003 Iraq War self-defence against Saddam Hussein, a war of aggression, or another category, a resource war? And we haven't even begun to address the question of who is in the moral right, which just opens up further cans of worms.]

It’s much more likely, in my opinion, that they’d be deeply annoyed at this attempted meddling and simply leave the Assembly instead. After all, on the basis of the resolutions that have been passed so far, the benefits of membership to those governments aren’t exactly so great that the prospect of losing them would really be a serious deterrent to walking out…

That's their decision. We're not too worried about what other nations choose to do in regards to their WA membership.

And if those governments do leave then, obviously, that would make passing (or voting-down) any future proposals on which they would have[/i] agreed [i]with you if they were still members more difficult…

This is pure conjecture, I hope you realise.

“Odious” is a matter of opinion: We disagree.

If being forced to be at risk of death or serious injury and to inflict that onto others against your will for the sake of a state you may not particularly like, care about, or support isn't odious, I don't know what is.

A minor re-write has been carried out, due to length constraints (and differing computer systems), see this thread's opening post for details.

It's been sent on a 'test run'.

I'll respond to the latest comments later today.

If it’s the recognition of nations’ rights to legislate for conscription then we’ll have to agree to differ: If it’s the idea of making military service a legal prerequisite for political rights, then may I point out that the ambassador from Kelssek (and, I think, the government that he represents here) would presumably object to your nation’s version of democracy — which might not include this factor, but does (unless it’s been changed recently?) make membership in a limited range of families a legal prerequisite for holding ministerial rank — too?

That would be their right, and we suspect that they would find supporters in Gobbannium who are currently too polite to mention their opinions. We would however contend that a military mindset is a particularly worrisome thing to inculcate in the entire voting population of a nation, while we have a sufficiency of intelligent and diversely-opinionated cousins that the populace does have a genuine choice while retaining many of the benefits of monarchy.

Hr’rrm, I scent what you’re arguing but I’m not sure that I agree with you about this. It seems likely to me that nations most where ‘national service’ is a routine feature would probably conscript people as fairly young adults, for just a year or three, before they’d got very far into any career; and if that is what happens then I think that those conscripts would probably find re-entering civilian life easier than any volunteers who’d just finished [for example] two-eights or three-eights of years in the forces…
Then ensuring that they don't fall below their previous unemployed state would be trivial, and nothing is sacrificed by mandating it.

Any people who might get “called-up” into their nations’ armed forces if & when mass conscription seemed necessary due to a ‘World War’ or another event on that sort of scale probably would have the problems that you’re talking about, I agree, but then in situations like that there might well have been a surge in voluntary enlistment “for the duration” too and those veterans would have similar problems afterwards to the ex-conscript ones.
They would however have chosen so to do, in the knowledge of the consequences that any career change can have. It is specifically with those who find themselves disadvantaged through no choice or fault of their own with which we are concerned.

I might be open to some persuasion on this matter, although I and my government would really like to keep this measure fairly ‘sovereignty-friendly’, but the maximum length allowed for proposals severely limits the extent of any additions that I could make. I have, however, changed the wording from “Strongly urges” to “Emphatically urges” as an initial step…
We appreciate that the honoured ambassador offers this alteration in a genuine spirit of accommodation, but if we are to be honest we cannot say that we see the choice of adverb as being significant. Those nations which are not inclined to care for those of their citizenry will still not do so, no matter how eloquently the case is pleaded.

Might I suggest a different title? "Rights About Military Service" sounds a bit strange.

Some possibilities:
Rights of Military Service
Rights of Military Service Members
Military Service Act
Armed Services Act

I'm sure there are other possible titles as well which would convey the meaning and purpose of the legislation.

Agreeded, I think the Military Service Act is catchy.

I'm not sure I want to recognise this as a right of the state.



The WA would be wise to continue to recognize it as a right of the state, unless it shortly wishes to become "The Occupied States of the WA". Pacifism doesn't work in international politics.

I don't think you understand. Anything the WA leaves unsaid is left to the discretion of member nations. There is nothing lost by not enshrining it in international law.

I would add that not conscripting citizens does not equate to pacifism. There are plenty of examples of warmongering, belligerent nations which have all-volunteer forces. Moreover, there is a valid argument that conscript armies can actually prevent wars due to the greater pull on public sentiment. However, the question is one of state rights versus individual rights, and the issue has been settled by the author's agreeing to use more neutral language, so unless you're asserting that we absolutely must explicitly grant states the right to conscript people, there really isn't a need for further discussion on this.

Nations of the World Assembly,

The Workers' Republic of Balawaristan proudly stood in opposition to the repeal of the Veterans Rights Act, and our position was one rooted in the international proletarian revolution that surges throughout the world and aims to establish peace and solidarity of oppressed peoples throughout the world. Though we were disappointed in the vote, we remain hopeful, and we submit wholly to the judgment of the international community.

With regards to this vote, we are alarmed by the rhetoric coming from our progressive friends, some of whom are known widely as the foremost standard-bearers of international socialism. I speak of course about this demonization of conscription.

We all desire peace. We all desire to make war unnecessary, an obsolete thing. Why do you think that a volunteer army solves this? It is a perversion of national defense! At once, it suggests that national defense be left to those for whom violence seems most natural, most thinkable. Rather than something done out of obligation, a responsibility to one's countrymen, service becomes a product of whim---a career choice.

You might say, "Dr. al-Ghazal, is it not the case that they might sign onto service to receive wages and benefits rather than out of cruelty?" And you think this is any better? Look around the world, and you see this done in the name of compassion---enticing men to die by giving them benefits. No, this is one of the most petty, bourgeois, anti-proletarian institutions to shame humanity. It turns the poor, those most enticed by benefits and wages, into the mercenaries of capitalism. It creates a class of wage-slaves, marching to the grave carrying a bayonet in one hand and a wad of cash in the other. Children should not be tempted to choose careers in killing just because they are poor. Nobody should have to sacrifice his humanity and become a professional soldier for the sake of such things as a house, an education, and conveniences. These things are basic rights, and the governments have a responsibility to provide them free of any such shameful strings.

The solution is to give everyone the yoke equally. You will have no professional mercenaries, you will have no underclass sent to fight the profitable wars of the rich if you yoke the poor the same as the rich and make military service universal.

As for notions of conscience restraining some women and men from serving but not from benefiting from the spilled blood of the Worker-Soldier, they are as useless to others as they are to themselves, are parasites on the system, and must be re-educated or erased. Religion is a bourgeois monstrosity, an internalized system of patriarchy and repression, and after our glorious revolution, such people no longer exist in Balawaristan. We are sickened by the fetishism of the individual and the sanctity of some sort of inner voice---however sexist, heteronormative, or otherwise anti-social such beliefs might be. Man is a political animal, and the realization of his true potential is conducted within the political realm. There is nothing that is not political. The revolution carries enlightenment everywhere.

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
Ambassador from the Workers' Republic of Balawaristan

We acknowledge your argument, sir. While we must disagree with your utilitarian view of your citizens, you are indeed correct that there are certain societal considerations in the question of conscript or all-volunteer armies.

The fact is that we're getting into philosophical territory on the rights of the individual and duties to society and powers of the state and if we're going to argue on those terms we will all die of asphyxiation before we settle anything.

We do not see the right of conscientious objection as a religious issue, while acknowledging that many would object based on religion. But, and we address this point generally here, if you can discriminate against and disenfranchise people on the basis on this belief, what other beliefs will also earn you a ban from voting or public office? If it is acceptable that you deny political rights to people who object to war or being ordered by the state to kill other persons, will it also be acceptable to deny political rights to anarchists, communists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, capitalists, socialists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, libertarians, librarians, dentists, blacks, whites, males, females, or any other identifiable group a state decides doesn't deserve to participate in public life for whatever reason?

And here we come to the most critical question. Is the World Assembly going to endorse that by passing a resolution essentially saying that political discrminiation is acceptable? Because that is essentially what the proposal in its current form is saying.