NationStates

Krioval finds this resolution to be well thought out and designed. Regrettably, we must still vote against its implementation. The Imperial Chiefdom recognizes that this resolution attempts to differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable conflicts, which we do not believe is something that can be determined by a single act of preemptive legislation. There are many grades of conflicts, skirmishes, and wars, and even more reasons to justify their initiation, continuation, and conclusion. Krioval has engaged in minor wars for the primary purpose of conquest. On its face, this looks eminently unjustifiable. However, the regions conquered were havens for raids on Kriovaller merchants and diplomatic indifference on the part of the nominal government there. In this case, our justification was clear - to us at least - but would have been strained had our armies moved further than was necessary to secure the defense of our empire.

We also take exception with the final clause. Either it dictates when an ally can support another based on the findings of the World Assembly, in which case I see no mechanism for adjudicating such restrictions, or it allows nations to determine justification on their own, in which case the justification will almost certainly be manufactured after the fact.

Tau Kriov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

Now I'm not saying anything by this, but why should you be able to tell us what we can and can't spend money on? If I want to spend lost of money on military, and plan for a full scale military invasion of my neighbors, that's my right.

No way should the WA be telling different countries how they should be spending their money for military. Some of us are at peace others may be at war so we should arm ourselves accordingly and not based on some legislation.

Jacobios wrote:No way should the WA be telling different countries how they should be spending their money for military. Some of us are at peace others may be at war so we should arm ourselves accordingly and not based on some legislation.

The West German Empire agrees with Jacobios, we see no reason to vote for such legislation that inhibits the ability of nations to defend themselves adequately.

The legislation is directly concerned with the formal declaration of war, and does not prevent one nation from fighting in said war. Therefore, I feel it does not step on our rights to declare war, just reduces secrecy of wars and prevents some "unjust" wars from being started. Even though I spend a lot of money on my nation's military, I support this legislation.

However, I would like to point out that the description says this legislation attempts "to slash worldwide military spending." I believe this is inaccurate, as it only asks for a declaration of war, not a reduction of a nation's military or the money supplied to the military.

The ambassador of Central Kadigan to The World Assembly has conferred with the Prime Minster and with the Minister of Foreign Affairs & Diplomacy, and has cast our vote in favor of this resolution. The leadership of parliament (President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Delegates) is confident of ratification.

The Commonwealth of Kington Langley supports the passage of this legislation. It successfully attempts to establish set rules on the declaration of war while, at the same time, providing realistic safeguards and provisions for breaking these rules. On a side note, we agree with TitanShadow12 regarding the category in which the resolution was proposed. Submitting it as a resolution to 'slash worldwide military spending' is inaccurate because it does not refer to or even hint at compulsory reduction of domestic military spending.

You know, as much as everyone is saying the WA has no right to interfere, they still have a lot more right to interfere here than the relationship between farmers and companies

Either way, AGAINST

The great republic of Velika Zeta has read your proposal, and has some concerns.


Firstly an internal problem. Velika Zeta is a growing militaristic nation, and our populace takes pride in our military, which have yet to lose on the battlefield. Our main fear is that we engage in petty wars to keep patriotic fervour high, and to keep our populace away from day to day problems, such as the incredible tax. "All for a good cause" we tell them.

Secondly, what defines a "just" war? Surely, what some countries see as a just war, others would see an atrocity. For example, if a large terrorist organisation strikes a country hard, Velika Zeta believes that the victim country has every right to engage full scale warfare against the source of the terrorist organisation, on the grounds that if they can't find said organisation themselves, the victim country will do it for them. However I am sure people will heavily disagree with this, as every man has an opinion and has his right to it.

Thirdly, this proposal in my eyes has very little swing. What do we do with a nation which is constantly belligerent and goes to war for the most selfish of needs? Or goes to war without reason? They will be scolded, and get a slap on the wrist in the form of lack of aid, but what about if the nation is a huge economically frightening nation that does not need foreign aid?

I will happily take answers if I have misread this proposal or if these questions have already been answered. However until then Velika Zeta, as it stands is 100% AGAINST this proposal.


-Ageati Lazarov, WA Ambassador of Velika Zeta.

While the nation of Aeribis is not a part of the World Assembly, nor wishes to have any large scale interactions with it, our leader feels that this would encroach on members outside of the WA. It calls for all wars to have a letter or some form of notification that a war is started. While this is admirable, this gives time for an enemy to attempt to gather resources quickly enough for a well manned counterstrike, which no one wishes their enemy to do. Also, this resolution speaks of "just" and "unjust" reasons for war. Allow me to make something clear. Justifications for war will always be made. The victor writes history. The victor will almost always be seen as the one who is just in the course of the war, while the loser is seen as evil and scum. Both sides will make it look like the other is unjust in the act of war, no matter the reason. And so, under your parameters, war will not be deterred in the slightest. I would please ask you to take this into consideration.

Sincerely, Ana Krieger, Minister of Foreign Relations

The floating, amorphously holographic, shimmering, disembodied head of Dominion Alpha (who looks kind of like a young Sean Connery), the AI controlling Cybersyn, looms over the small podium in the WA council chambers.

"War cannot be legal, nor can it be illegal because it does not qualify for the judgment of a disaffected nation. The purpose of war is not always unclear, but is often clouded by the failures of the aggressor. Failure to compromise, failure to convene on equal terms, failure to grant equal treatment under the terms of a greater assembly, and failure to respect the culture and ethical rights of another civilization; these are the reasons for the wars of humanity when war is viewed in the terms of irrationality. The reasons for war by a state that does not understand the purpose of its superiority are messy and irrational. This is because to define the parameters of failure is illogical and impractical. War can only have, by definition, two positive motives for war and these must be it: to liberate a people from an irrationally oppressive dictator, or to subvert the rise of a warring nation. In these cases, an aggressive nation is often sought after to maintain this balance. The last reason for war is one that meets parameters of sound design, but does not seem to be the main motive for war. Conquering a lesser nation struggling with economic development in order that they be incorporated into a superior civilization should be another solidified purpose for war. To restore stability to humanity in a region in this way should be paramount. The civilian casualties in this case should always be minimized. I propose that the World Assembly recognize this idea and maintain its original design of keeping this balance. No new legislation should change this purpose until humanity rises above the need for war. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the council, for this opportunity to speak. Good day to you."

The Empire of Mortifer cannot and will not support the 'Declaration of War' legislation. First of all, the Empire's economy is centered around military spending! So we can't cut military spending! Doing so would be commiting economic suicide! Secondly, the Empire has many, many enemies. Without a strong military, our empire will be rendered vulnerable to an enemy attack that could cost millions of lives. Finally, the WA dose not and should not have the right to tell other nations what can and cannot put funding to. It should be solely up to the nation itself to decide what it's funding should focus on. This is why The Empire Of Mortifer cannot and will not support the 'Declaration of War' legislation.

Supreme Executive Jack Rage now pipes up. "I agree with the shining disembodied head of Sean Connery on one fact. War is not to be prevented, but it should be regulated. We've been doing fine these last few decades with managing our own foreign wars. War is an economic process that is costly when the advantages of taking control of a region don't outweigh the cost of lives and resources sacrificed to do so. That counts for every situation, even if you are the country that has been attacked. You know the cost of losing the war at that point. It's that country's purpose then, to make taking their country not an advantageous decision. The WA has regulated this in each region through the regional delegates who protect the little guys. These are the little guys who haven't had a chance to hit the world scene. You see, you may think Ranseur is a power-hungry capitalist nation, but we still understand that economic dominance is better maintained by trade than it is through incorporation. That's just simple business for ya."

Forbids Member Nations from providing foreign aid, direct financial support, and/or military supplies to a nation that is engaging in an unjustified or unjustifiable war.

This is what I have a problem with, and why I'm voting against it. I completely agree that war is almost always a human rights violation and military spending should be cut. HOWEVER, "unjustified" is a completely relative term, and I can't support this if we don't have a definition for it that I can agree with. Not only that, as the owner of my region, even in unjustified wars, I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting my region.

Although this nation do not agree with the term 'justifiable war', we think there would be a little more peace with this bill than it would without it and that it is a good step forward.

No NEVER!!

Swimmiteria wrote:

Forbids Member Nations from providing foreign aid, direct financial support, and/or military supplies to a nation that is engaging in an unjustified or unjustifiable war.

This is what I have a problem with, and why I'm voting against it. I completely agree that war is almost always a human rights violation and military spending should be cut. HOWEVER, "unjustified" is a completely relative term, and I can't support this if we don't have a definition for it that I can agree with. Not only that, as the owner of my region, even in unjustified wars, I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting my region.

Each nations gets to define "justified" for yourself. This means that a country can support or boycott a warring nation as they wish, just as before.

As for the military budget issue, that's just the category description. The resolution does not, in fact compel a nation to do anything, aside from declare war when they go to war.

I feel like there's a lot of confusion about this resolution, and the GA/WA in general.

Yeah, the "global disarmament" category is massively charged. Like most everything on NS.

I would like to point out that those of you who are not supporting this bill based on your economy's reliance on military spending or the large budget on your military are missing an important fact: This bill is NOT saying that you cut military spending, even though that's in the subtitle! It only asks for a formal declaration when you enter war, not to reduce the budget of your military. Please reconsider if that was the basis of your reasoning!
Sorry, didn't realize the category DID mean that the spending on a nation's military would be reduced regardless of the text in the legislation.

TitanShadow12 wrote: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.

You can never take away the nations' right to declare war and kill each other. It's just a natural born thing.

Grand Duke Andreas Paulus of Egal has conferred with his ministers and all parties have agreed that we as a government should support this legislation. Although war is antithetical to the values upon which our land was founded, we do understand that it is sometimes necessary to fight in response to attack or to address grave violations of basic human rights. It is with this understanding that we wish to have a system by which declarations of war can be assuredly just and not unjust, wanton, or preemptive.

War... war never changes.

I'm glad that this resolution is destined for failure. It is not fair for the culturally militant nations that utilize warfare as an integral part of their foreign policy. Many Empires rise and fall by the sword, and I pray that it shall always be so in some fashion. If the peaceful nations fear conflict, then they should not need to clamor and bleat at the heels of the World Assembly to protect their feeble selves.

Do what other nations do... find some "Knight in Shining Armor Nation" to be your benefactor. Form alliances, sign treaties, engage in acts of diplomacy.

You may as well try to put laws in place on how they treat you in hell as trying to put laws on warfare. Against

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

We rise in dismay at seeing this proposal make it to the Assembly floor. With all due respect to the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, this has to be one of the most pointless proposals ever brought before this assembly. Does any representative here honestly think that, if a nation has made the fateful decision to pursue military action, that nation has not already taken into account the opinion of the World Assembly on that matter, and made plans accordingly? Similarly, if the government of any given nation represented here has made the decision to involve itself another nation's war, has not that government already decided that the nation they're supporting has just reasons for waging it?

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