[DEFEATED][#] Ban of Perfidy in Warfare

[Mallorea and Riva]

Ban of Perfidy in Warfare

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Elke and Elba

Believing that member states must observe certain codes of conduct in times of war,

Convinced that amongst these, the duty not to commit perfidious act is one of the more pertinent and integral one,

Recognising that concerted international action is required to prevent the shirking of this duty, and that concerted international action is required to establish laws to that effect, also,

Worrying that any act of perfidy conducted by any belligerent party in a war would only undermine trust and breed mistrust towards the adversary and/or humanitarian organisations,

The World Assembly,

1. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including, but not limited to,

a) falsely declaring to be a non-combatant,
b) deceiving to be in distress,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce without the intention to do so;

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS combatants of member states from issuing any messages of intent (e.g. offer of surrender) that are meant to deceive, and falsely using any signs, signals, emblems and/or insignia, to seek protection and/or protected status, especially those,

a) associated with the World Assembly,
b) associated with humanitarian organisations;

3. FORBIDS combatants of member states from using any form of identification, military or otherwise, of any other sovereign state except their own during combat; of which such identification includes but is not limited to flags, coat of arms, emblems, uniforms and insignia, unless,

a) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to use their own identification, and,
b) the other sovereign state is an allied party participating in the conflict;

4. CLARIFIES that,

a) any violation of this resolution is to be considered war crimes for the purposes of prosecution, and,
b) member states are thus required to prosecute any non-compliant combatant;

5. FURTHER MANDATES the International Criminal Court (ICC) to try any non-compliant combatant if,

a) the member state in which the said combatant had represented had ceased to exist, or,
b) no member state is able to try the said combatant due to extenuating conditions not covered in clause 4 or sub-clause (a) of this clause, and;

6. FURTHER CLARIFIES that ruses of war are permitted as long as they do not violate any restriction enacted by this resolution. These include, but are not limited to,

a) tactics that may utilize deceit, and/or,
b) tactics that have the intent to mislead or provoke a reaction from their adversaries.

[Elke and Elba]

The Argument For

TO POTENTIAL OPPOSERS - OOC/IC DISCLAIMER: This proposal does not affect your ability to trick people (think how Q-boats operated, think Operation Bodyguard) - so long that you aren't taking advantage of the adversary's trust through ways in clause 3 and 4 (think Srebrenica - the false use of UN logos + insignia by the Army of Republika Srpska to trick the Bosniaks into thinking they were protected - that would have fallen foul of this and the genocide resolution)

A good argument by Mr. Fungschlammer:

"The point is that perfidy undermines confidence. It's in every nation's interests - irrespective of which side they are on in a conflict, or whether they're involved at all - that universal symbols such as surrender, Red Cross markings, or the WA emblem be respected.

"I also question the argument that perfidy has any military value. Flagrantly illegal orders tend to not have value. For example, when the right of surrender is not respected, opponents are more likely to fight to the death and be emboldened in their defiance. Commit perfidious acts under a Red Cross banner and legitimate use of the banner to provide aid to injured soldiers will no longer be trusted.

"It's presently fashionable in the WA to disclaim any sort of regulation of war. But let's not pretend those arguments have any real substance to them."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Elke and Elba]

Selected previous drafts

OUTDATED Draft 6.

Gruen's objections addressed, with Douria's suggestion.

I'm not entirely sure about merging 5 and 6 at the moment given that they have multiple sub-clauses themselves with not very clear converging points now and would may be better off independent than amalgamated.

Convinced that every state has certain obligations even during times of war,

Believing that combatants taking advantage of these obligations to commit any perfidious act violates the rule of international law,

Recognising that concerted international action is required in order to prevent the occurrence of such deplorable acts,

Worrying that any act of perfidy conducted by any belligerent party in a war would only undermine trust and breed mistrust towards the adversary and/or humanitarian organisations,

The World Assembly,

1. DEFINES perfidy to be the act of gaining an enemy's trust through actions that suggest good faith, but with the intent of betraying the enemy to achieve an advantageous position;

2. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including, but not limited to,

a) falsely declaring to be a non-combatant,
b) deceiving to be in distress,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce without the intention to do so;

3. FURTHER PROHIBITS combatants of member states from intending to mislead their adversaries by using signs, signals, emblems and/or insignia,

a) associated with the World Assembly,
b) associated with humanitarian organisations,
c) representing any message of intent understood universally,

to seek protection and/or protected status.

4. FORBIDS combatants of member states from using any form of identification, military or otherwise, of any other sovereign state except their own during combat; of which such identification includes but is not limited to flags, coat of arms, emblems, uniforms and insignia, unless,

a) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to use their own identification, and,
b) the other sovereign state is an allied party and also not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;

5. CLARIFIES that,

a) any and all violations of this resolution are to be considered war crimes for the purposes of prosecution, and,
b) that member states are thus required to prosecute any non-compliant combatant that was or currently is representing them in conflict;

6. FURTHER MANDATES the International Criminal Court (ICC) to try any non-compliant combatant if,

a) the member state in which the said combatant had represented had ceased to exist, or,
b) no member state is able to try the said combatant due to extenuating conditions not covered in clause 5 or sub-clause (a) of this clause, and;

7. FURTHER CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prohibits the use of ruses of war, that includes but are not limited to,

a) tactics that may utilize deceit, and/or,
b) tactics that have the intent to mislead or invoke a reaction from their adversaries,

so long as the action does not violate any restriction enacted by this resolution.

Draft 5

Convinced that every state has certain obligations even during times of war,

Believing that combatants taking advantage of these obligations to commit any perfidious act violates the rule of international law,

Recognising that concerted international action is required in order to prevent the occurrence of such deplorable acts,

Worrying that any act of perfidy conducted by any belligerent party in a war would only undermine trust and breed mistrust towards the adversary and/or humanitarian organisations,

The World Assembly,

1. DEFINES perfidy to be the act of gaining an enemy's trust through actions that suggest good faith, but with the intent of betraying the enemy to achieve an advantageous position;

2. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including, but not limited to,

a) falsely declaring to be a non-combatant,
b) deceiving to be in distress,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce without the intention to do so;


3. FURTHER PROHIBITS combatants of member states from intending to mislead their adversaries by using signs, signals, emblems and/or insignia,

a) associated with the World Assembly,
b) associated with any neutral internationally recognised humanitarian organisations,
c) representing any message of intent understood universally,

to seek protection and/or protected status.

4. FORBIDS combatants of member states from using any form of identification, military or otherwise, of any other sovereign state except their own during combat; of which such identification includes but is not limited to flags, coat of arms, emblems, uniforms and insignia, unless,

a) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to use their own identification, and,
b) the other sovereign state is an allied party and also not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;


5. MANDATES that member states prosecute non-compliant combatants representing them in conflict;

6. FURTHER MANDATES the International Criminal Court (ICC) to try any non-compliant combatant if,

a) the member state in which the said combatant had represented had ceased to exist, or,
b) no member state is able to trial the said combatant due to extenuating conditions not covered in clause 6 or sub-clause (a) of this clause, and;


7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prohibits the use of ruses of war, that includes but are not limited to,

a) tactics that may utilize deceit, and/or,
b) tactics that have the intent to mislead or invoke a reaction from their adversaries,

so long as the action does not constitute perfidy.

Draft IIIa (VERY OLD DRAFT - pre-2nd-submission, please see THIS instead!)

Convinced that every state have certain obligations even in times of war, such as towards the wounded,

Believing that any state or combatants taking advantage of these obligations to commit any perfidious action violates every basic tenet of international law,

Recognising that concerted international action is required in order to prevent the occurrence of such deplorable actions,

Understanding that such perfidy involves the betrayal of the implicit trust accorded by the adversary party, which is despicable regardless of whether such betrayal of trust takes place under the guise or war or otherwise, also,

Undoubting that every state and combatant should thus be accorded their equal rights and protections in fulfilling their obligations, especially since it is done in a spirit of good faith,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. DEFINES perfidy to be the act of gaining an enemy's trust through actions that suggest good faith, but with the intent of betraying the enemy to achieve an advantageous position;

2. FURTHER DEFINES perfidy to be a war crime;

3. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including, but not limited to,
a) falsely declaring civilian status,
b) falsifying injury,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce;

4. FURTHER PROHIBITS combatants of member states from intending to mislead their adversaries by utilising signs, emblems and/or signals,
a) associated with the World Assembly,
b) associated with any internationally recognised organisations,
c) representing any message of intent understood universally,
to seek protection and/or protected status through the use of such signs/emblems/signals;

5. FORBIDS combatants of member states from utilising any form of identification, military or otherwise, of any other sovereign state except their own during combat; of which such identification includes but is not limited to flags, emblems, military uniforms and military insignia, unless,
a) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to utilise their own identification, and,
b) the other sovereign state is not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;

6. MANDATES that member states prosecute non-compliant combatants representing them in conflict;

7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prohibits the use of tactics that may utilize deceit or trickery, such as diversions or ambush, so long as the action does not constitute perfidy, and;

8. FURTHER CLARIFIES nothing in this resolution shall be construed as applying to non-physical warfare, such as cyber warfare.

UNDERSTANDING that member states might engage in war,

NOTING that during warfare, member states might resort to deception and trickery by playing to the goodwill, altruism and/or trust of their opponents in order to win battles,

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that such deceitful conduct should never be condoned in any form of warfare between member states and their respective combatants, yet,

WORRYING that if nothing is done to curb this, the practice will be de facto condoned due to its ability to win warfare, despite the act of perfidy being despicable and shameful, also,

FURTHER NOTING that limiting and restricting the power of the government(s) of the respective member states is thus needed in order to ensure member states are barred from commanding members of their respective armed forces to commit perfidious acts,

The World Assembly,

1. DEFINES perfidy to be the conducting of actions with the intent to secure the goodwill of an adversary or opponent in war, in order to betray such trust;

2. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including by not limited to,
a) falsely declaring civilian status,
b) falsifying injury,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce;

3. FURTHER PROHIBITS combatants of member states from intending to mislead their adversaries by utilising signs, emblems and/or signals,
a) associated with the World Assembly,
b) associated with any internationally recognised organisations,
c) representing any message of intent understood universally,
to seek protection and/or protected status through the use of such signs/emblems/signals;

4. BANS combatants of member states from utilising any form of identification, military or otherwise of any other sovereign state except their own during combat, of which such identification encompasses but are not limited to flags, emblems, military uniforms and military insignia, unless,
i) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to utilise their own identification, and,
ii) the other sovereign state is not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;

5. MANDATES member states to prosecute any non-compliant combatant representing the said member state in warfare;

6. ASSURES member states that nothing in this resolution prohibits their combatants to practice ruses of war, which have the intent to mislead or invoke a reaction from their adversaries, so long as these ruses of war do not rely on malevolently utilising the goodwill extended by these combatants' adversaries;

7. FURTHER ASSURES member states that nothing in this resolution applies to non-physical warfare, such as cyberwarfare;

8. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution governs the conduct of warfare between any conflict between a member state and a non-member state, or between any conflict between non-member states;

9. ASSERTS that the same protections and exemptions as dispensed in this resolution applies to conflicts with multiple parties, and;

10. HOPES that member states will extend these practices mandated by this resolution to instances of warfare with adversary non-member states too.

Category: Political Stability, Mild.

[United Great Britian]

You should submit this in its current state.

[Separatist Peoples]

I am very surprised as to how this draft isn't getting any attention at all.

*throws out the "oh it seems like there's no problem, due for submission" card to scare the delegates on the floor*

"Please, don't submit this yet. There's nothing wrong with it, but the debate halls are a bit busy at the moment. Nothing is getting the attention it deserves, be it much or little..."

[Elke and Elba]

I am very surprised as to how this draft isn't getting any attention at all.

*throws out the "oh it seems like there's no problem, due for submission" card to scare the delegates on the floor*

"Please, don't submit this yet. There's nothing wrong with it, but the debate halls are a bit busy at the moment. Nothing is getting the attention it deserves, be it much or little..."

Obviously I won't. I'm just trying to make things a bit livelier...

[Abacathea]

Stylistically some of the language reads clunky to me, but as has been pointed out a few times, I syntax differently from the rest here, so it could be me.

It still needs polishing to me, but from what I see you have the core of something good here. I'd take a while to refine it, let it sit a while, don't rush something like this.

Unforunately there's been an infestation of noobs submitting shite to the queue as of late, but that might work to your benefit time wise, so use it while it's there I guess.

[Elke and Elba]

Stylistically some of the language reads clunky to me, but as has been pointed out a few times, I syntax differently from the rest here, so it could be me.

It still needs polishing to me, but from what I see you have the core of something good here. I'd take a while to refine it, let it sit a while, don't rush something like this.

Unforunately there's been an infestation of noobs submitting shite to the queue as of late, but that might work to your benefit time wise, so use it while it's there I guess.

I have no intention to send this to the chopping board as fast as I did for Moratorium (which was honestly a half-hearted bill with more of a purpose in an attempt to block the noob shite by choking the quorum, but it seems to have an otherwise effect).

Unlike Moratorium, I do want to pass this. I agree that the language is clunky as some portion, and relatively more clunky than a normal Aba draft due to the difference in syntax (yours is like, uh, WA redefined).

It will sit here, while I go get another part of the War Conduct Project chopped up and simmered in sou... ah, Festering Snakepit.

[Elke and Elba]

Bump as note to self to edit obvious problems in syntax and wording.

Can't do it now, it's 2AM.

[Elke and Elba]

Bump.

Having troubles with National Airspace Act sadly (taking time to clear brain and reset), and Prohibition of Undeclared Wars over wording.

This seems most promising and the least WIP-feels at the moment.

[Elke and Elba]

Submitted.

[Snefaldia]

ASSURES member states that nothing in this resolution prohibits their combatants to practice ruses of war, which have the intent to mislead or invoke a reaction from their adversaries, so long as these ruses of war do not rely on malevolently utilising the goodwill extended by these combatants' adversaries;

Wait, what? This doesn't make any sense at all. What does "malevolently utilising the goodwill extended by these combatants' adversaries" mean? You can only trick your enemies if you're doing it with a smile on your face? Or you need the permission of a third party to use their symbols?

How are ruses of war, or in fact war in general, not malevolent?

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution governs the conduct of warfare between any conflict between a member state and a non-member state, or between any conflict between non-member states;

FURTHER CLARIFIES the same protection accorded as mandated in this clause, and the same exemption as dispensed in clause 7 applies even in multi-party conflicts, yet;

HOPES member states will enforce their combatants to extend these practices mandated by this resolution on warfare with adversary non-member states too.

This makes absolutely no sense. The FURTHER CLARIFIES statement doesn't clarify anything- it, and the subsequent HOPES are a jumble of grammatical dependent clauses lacking an independent clause- what are you trying to say?

Why did you take a lack of responses since March as a sign that this was ready to submit?

Primua Tarhuntamanapa
Charge d'Affaires

[Elke and Elba]

blah blah blah blah

Nope. We don't need any reason to submit anything.

I'm actually quite proud at myself for being able to listen to that hollering intently, because shouting in one's ears is just plain bad manners. Not that we took your advice to heart, we don't really like to listen to crazy nuts after all.

Maybe try again with a more moderated tone?

Alethea Norrland (Ambassador)

[Snefaldia]

I am absolutely serious. I don't understand what those last clauses mean, at all. They are unclear grammatically and confuse the meaning of your text. I doubt I'm the only one confused, and my comments are a serious, good-faith attempt to figure out what it means.

I realize it's de rigeur these days to go through a quick drafting phase and then submit to gauge support, but if some delegates can't even figure out what major operative clauses in your legislation actually mean (and not in a "ha ha creative compliance way) then you need to stop and think about your process for consensus.

"FURTHER CLARIFIES the same protection accorded as mandated in this clause, and the same exemption as dispensed in clause 7 applies even in multi-party conflicts, yet;"

Same protection accorded to whom? Which protection? Mandated in which clause- the preceding clause or the current clause? Why is the aforementioned protection not included in this clause?

Let's go further- what, exactly, is "malevolently utilising the goodwill extended by these combatants' adversaries?" Who exactly are the adversaries and combatants? Do you mean the permissions granted to use sovereign insignia? What is the goodwill you've described here?

This is not a question of mindlessly shouting you down for daring to submit a proposal- notice I haven't even touched on the actual content of the text because I'm still trying to figure out what the last bit of text means.

Now please, can you clarify your legislation?

Primua Tarhuntamanapa
etc.

[Dendodgia]

BANS combatants of member states from utilising any form of identification, military or otherwise of any other sovereign state except their own during combat, of which such identification encompasses but are not limited to flags, emblems, military uniforms and military insignia, unless,
i) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to utilise their own identification,
ii) the other sovereign state is not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;

Is that AND or OR? It's an important distinction that could prevent the resolution's effectiveness if passed. We don't want people claiming loopholes because of one missing word.

[Wrapper]

FURTHER CLARIFIES the same protection accorded as mandated in this clause, and the same exemption as dispensed in clause 7 applies even in multi-party conflicts, yet;

Which clause is clause 7? They aren't numbered.

[Araraukar]

Category: Not decided yet.

I'm quite sure you're aware that squeezing a proposal into a category after the fact is almost never going to work.

Pick a category, write the proposal with the category in mind, that's the way to go.

EDIT: I see you posted it as Global Disarmament, Significant. You really should update your first post draft. (And consider asking it to be pulled down via a GHR.)

[Araraukar]

After fiddling with some papers on her desk, Janis holds one of them up by its corner as though it was soiled with something unpleasant. "Considering the telegrams our home office received from the not-so-honorable GA delegation of Elke and Elba, quoted below, it's been decided by our beloved Leader that we should be in opposition to this travesty of a proposal whether or not it turns out to be legal."

Or was this whole thing about "submitting to test support" a lie to you? Don't assume anything with imperfect information.

You don't even know if I'm telling the truth.

Up to you. I don't care shit enough about NS or yourself (if you were thinking you're that important?) too.

I choose to post TG or in the forums depending on my needs and perception to see which method is better. I don't OOCly care about your opinions or whatsoever, but if you choose to take a dig at me, I'll respond no matter what.

Demanding people take a GHR just because of your own request and not even caring to put your arse into the WA is something I'd say is hypocritical at best. Perhaps maybe, the audacity at responding thereafter, too?

Good riddance.

OOC: Further debate on this thread, please, not in TG. Also, I can't be in WA with Araraukar, or I'd be multiying.

[Elke and Elba]

After fiddling with some papers on her desk, Janis holds one of them up by its corner as though it was soiled with something unpleasant. "Considering the telegrams our home office received from the not-so-honorable GA delegation of Elke and Elba, quoted below, it's been decided by our beloved Leader that we should be in opposition to this travesty of a proposal whether or not it turns out to be legal."

Or was this whole thing about "submitting to test support" a lie to you? Don't assume anything with imperfect information.

You don't even know if I'm telling the truth.

Up to you. I don't care shit enough about NS or yourself (if you were thinking you're that important?) too.

I choose to post TG or in the forums depending on my needs and perception to see which method is better. I don't OOCly care about your opinions or whatsoever, but if you choose to take a dig at me, I'll respond no matter what.

Demanding people take a GHR just because of your own request and not even caring to put your arse into the WA is something I'd say is hypocritical at best. Perhaps maybe, the audacity at responding thereafter, too?

Good riddance.

OOC: Further debate on this thread, please, not in TG. Also, I can't be in WA with Araraukar, or I'd be multiying.

Oh - does the crowd wants to see the deplorable messages Araraukar sent to EnE, then?

[Snefaldia]

OOC: This is a debate thread, not a schoolyard shouting match. Posting TGs without permission is in rather bad taste, anyway.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This is a debate thread, not a schoolyard shouting match. Posting TGs without permission is in rather bad taste, anyway.

OOC: Funnily enough, another TG said I could quote it.

Demanding people take a GHR just because of your own request and not even caring to put your arse into the WA is something I'd say is hypocritical at best. Perhaps maybe, the audacity at responding thereafter, too?

Still OOC: This bit is what I'd have hoped them to put in this thread rather than TG. Still hoping they'll put it in, in their own words.

Oh - does the crowd wants to see the deplorable messages Araraukar sent to EnE, then?

IC: Your delegation chose to message our home office directly, rather than present their case out in the open, here. Additionally, you gave us permission to present your arguments publicly. Are you now rescinding that permission? (OOC: If you thought I wouldn't actually quote the TGs, just say so and I'll edit them out of the previous post.)

EDIT: I haz teh powers of the double-posting, it seems. Everything in one place now.

[Sciongrad]

Submitted.

OOC: I see you've chosen to explicitly ignore my advice, and submitted this anyway. I'll reiterate what I said earlier: a lack of response is never reason to submit a resolution. Ever. Unfortunately, due to your impatience, you've submitted a resolution that's virtually indecipherable, because I have absolutely no idea what half of it is trying to say. Rather than spending your energy throwing a hissy fit an angrily telegramming everyone that even remotely opposes anything you do, why don't you try contacting people for help? Because if this is the type of resolution you want your name attached to, I don't think your time in the GA will be very fun.

[Ardchoille]

It needs more discussion on category. See this thread for discussion on a similarly military theme that in fact affected individual rights. Despite the subject of this one being the military, I think it's closer to Moral Decency (because it makes governments restrict civil freedoms of soldiers in their ordinary daily lives), but I wouldn't go with that as a hard and fast decision until you've tossed the whole thing around a bit more.

Basically, I think you've got the kernel of the legislation here, but it needs polishing. Settle on the category, rewrite to highlight whatever's relevant to that category and pull out anything that doesn't fit it.

[Dendodgia]

I'd agree with the moral decency classification; rather than slashing military spending and disarming the military, this legislation instead defines the parameters of what they can and cannot do while in a state of war; it's a moral issue, not a disarmament one.

I'd suggest revoking the submission, reworking it so the lower half makes sense (and adding in the and/or I asked about earlier), and resubmitting in the new category. The spirit of the draft is good, but it's not passable in its current form; it's suffered from a classic case of early submission.

And the petty arguing going on in this thread isn't really helping very much at all; can't we just focus on the resolution, rather than personal conflicts?

[Araraukar]

I'd suggest revoking the submission

OOC: I read Ard's post as the modly reason for why it was removed from the queue. Until E&E comes back online and has time to update the draft, it's pretty much on hold.