[DEFEATED] On the Declaration of War

[Airandia]

To determine if a war is justified or not, is necessary a political and historical analysis that take years. The revisionist processes add complexity in the study of a war causes (and consequences), and a military conflict begins responding more to historical courses, than short term political actions.
Then the applicability of this proposal is questionable, coupled with possible detriment of the nations sovereignty.
Ensuring the respect of the human rights and international law is the fundamental responsibility of the World Assembly during a military action, NOT deciding on defense and international policies that belongs to a country sovereignty.
Therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Airandia delegates, with the power conferred by the Executive office and the National Assembly, refuses to support this proposal.]

[Bodobol]

Bodobol opposes this legislation on the basis that it is impossible for a single party to determine whether or not a war is justifiable.

[Crizchu]

War itzelf iz unjiztifiable... the rezolution iz a way to legitimate certain wars that seem "rational", but no war iz rational for the people of Crizchu. Crizchu votez "AGAINZT".

[New Charon]

This disarmament proposal is ridiculous and I hope it get defeated (which it will). What about the nations that aren't active members of the world assembly? They will be a severe advantage as they continue to build up there military power while our nations will be prevented from advancing our own defenses because of an international sanction, which was in turn proposed by pacifists who are probably reliant on there allies for military protection.

[Bungaku Shoujo]

The government of Bungaku Shoujo voted against the resolution as we don't see why we should risk the lives of our own soldiers to aid another nation who might be practicing the ideologies that we oppose.

[Antrema]

We already have provisions of this in Antremian Law, but due to the wording of this treaty of the world assembly namely the prohibiton of military or financial aid or support to a nation already engaged in war, we have vetoed this bill. Any nation that is found to have supported enemies of the state during wartime by providing financial or military aid will be dealt with appropriately.

[Araraukar]

As well-intentioned as this proposal is, it is fundamentally meaningless, and we are wasting our time debating it.

The voting trend is agreeing with you, almost 80% against right now.

[Cabana]

Do we really need any more soldiers?
I just got off the phone with the Toldovian Prime Minister and he bragged to me about the martial law he enacted with all of his soldiers.
It's inevitable that we will end up starting martial law with all these soldiers
The only thing I do not support about it however is advancing our military's technology.

[Scorpio1224]

Dear Ambassadors,

The Republic of Scorpio1224 has no issue with nations wanting to ensure that people go to war for justified reasons. But it is our view that some Nation's reasons may not be that clear to other nations and this defeats the purpose of this resolution. It is up to the citizens of that nation or nations to determine whether or not their governments are justified in the actions they have taken. As such, the Republic of Scorpio1224 votes AGAINST this resolution.

The Republic of Scorpio1224 World Assembly Ambassador,
John Bolt

[Ummagumma]

As sneak attacks are the acts of cowards, we believe that this resolution doesn’t go far enough. It permits you to invade someone and then at your earliest convenience declare war. That option completely strips this resolution of any significance.

It should be stipulated by the WA that under no circumstances is it acceptable to go to war with another state without first making a formal declaration and with good reason (if there truly is such a thing). For too long we've had to endure a steady line of wars that have no reason other than war itself. There are far too many opt outs for this resolution to be effective.

When a WA member state commits savage acts of war, without regard for diplomacy, it diminishes us all.

[TitanShadow12]

This bill is NOT saying that you cut military spending, even though that's in the subtitle!

The category does that, though, regardless of the resolution text. Look them up.

OOPS, my bad! I guess you're right.
I still stand by my decision for other reasons. Thanks for clearing that up. Now i feel stupid...

[Velika Zeta]

Velika Zeta wishes condolences to Cowardly Pacifists, as it appears this resolution is destined for failure.


However, it then retracts its condolences as it can not help but think that this resolution was, in part, formulated for Cowardly Pacifists own agenda.

[Maynardian Diplomatic Mission to the WA]

When judging resolution, our diplomatic mission considers whether the benefits of the legislation outweigh the loss of sovereignty and/or the increase of bureaucracy. We have judged that this resolution worth it and will be supporting it.

[Aguas Tranquilas]

While the United States of Aguas Tranquilas is a peaceful nation that strongly condemns the unjust waging and execution of wars, and believes in international accountability, we have chosen to vote against this proposal. We believe that it is an unnecessary set of restrictions. The Security Council is responsible for keeping nations accountable. Adding a set of guidelines on various subjects for the Security Council might be in order, however. This GA proposal contains no mention of the Security Council and is only on the subject of the declaration of war. The Government of Aguas Tranquilas, supported by numerous citizens, suggests that this proposal be revamped to provide fewer loopholes, eliminate the possibility of subjectivity, to focus more on the conduct of war, and to make specific reference to the Security Council.
Jack Olive-Branch
Assistant to the Tranquilian Ambassador to the GA

[Mizrad]

Bodobol opposes this legislation on the basis that it is impossible for a single party to determine whether or not a war is justifiable.

I agree with the proposal, but also with this statement. Said "Deciding party" Would obviously be the biased government of the nation waiting for a reason to turn a country to ash just because of some made up reason to attack somebody who did little wrong.

[Bears Armed]

*(reads the text)*

Requires Member Nations, in making their determination, to consider whether war is necessary for self defense, to protect an innocent nation from imminent danger, or to correct a grave public evil such as aggression or a violation of basic human rights;

"So fighting to defend humans' rights would be considered 'just', but fighting to defend ursines' rights wouldn't?
"Against."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


(OOC: Honestly the first time that I'd looked closely enough to spot that point...)

[Ainocra]

Due to the attempt to rob nations of their discretion we can no longer support this proposal.
The Star Empire votes Nay.

[Taak]

Taak is in favor, although opponents have voiced valid concerns and questions regarding the proposal. Voted yes.

[The Old States]

As The Old States stands by that no resolution shall limit any nation of war powers, we vote nay for this bill.

[Perlas-ng-Silangan]

We, the people of the Allied States of Perlas-ng-Silangan, are vexed with certain stipulations in the proposal and thus raise the same objections as the representatives of Bodobol and Scorpio1224.

We vote against the resolution, without prejudice to its being brought to vote again in an amended form in the foreseeable future.

[Czechopolakia]

Against

[Gwrachbyd]

we feel that we will have to abstain from voting on this issue for the time being as though we agree that war is terrible thing and that the world would be a better place without it we also feel that it is a nessacary evil and that sometimes armed conflict is unavoidable, and we feel that terms such as "justifiable" is too ambiguious as what one person or nation may consider a valid reason to go to war another may not.

even though we agree with the spirit of this proposition we feel that at this time we can not vote one way or the other as we feel that if this were to come to pass it could limit the ability of ourself and others to aid those we feel need help in the event that such situation should arrise but considered "unjustified" by other nations.

so for now we have decided to withold our vote until we have had time to ponder the ramifications of this proposal but are still willing to listen to arguements one way or the other in regards to this proposal

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

*(reads the text)*

Requires Member Nations, in making their determination, to consider whether war is necessary for self defense, to protect an innocent nation from imminent danger, or to correct a grave public evil such as aggression or a violation of basic human rights;

"So fighting to defend humans' rights would be considered 'just', but fighting to defend ursines' rights wouldn't?
"Against."

Your excellency, we are under the apprehension that when it is the WA, 'human rights' should be interpreted in the same way that the WA category 'human rights' is. At the very least, the wording is identical.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Clearly, there is not much international support for this idea - at least not as I've managed to express it in this proposal.

I remain convinced that war declarations serve a valid international purpose, though I fear my attempt to include more than a smidgen of just war theory is what doomed this proposal.

[Crowell Republic]

Making this law will mean that no nation can be supported during a time of need. If a nation is in trouble we can't help them. You need to end this vote anyways. Your going to lose because most of the delegates have voted against.