[DEFEATED][#] Ban of Perfidy in Warfare

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Perfidy is a war crime. A proposal to ban perfidy that does not declare it to be a war crime is completely ridiculous. 100% opposed to the current revision.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: Perfidy is a war crime. A proposal to ban perfidy that does not declare it to be a war crime is completely ridiculous. 100% opposed to the current revision.

I would, given Douria was reading the wrong draft.

The problem now would be streamlining the old (or will be revived) "DEFINES perfidy to be a war crime" clause with clauses 6 to 7 to make it flow better.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: Perfidy is a war crime. A proposal to ban perfidy that does not declare it to be a war crime is completely ridiculous. 100% opposed to the current revision.

OOC: What is a "war crime" in the context of the WA anyway? Using a meaningless descriptor for no reason than it sounds good is a terrible idea.

Though to ensure it gets back into the draft you could use a 5.a saying "Clarifies that any and all violations of this resolution are to be considered war crimes for the purposes of prosecution"

Also from a language standpoint condensing 5 and 6 into a common clause with multiple subsections would be a better idea. I think anyway.

[Elke and Elba]

Draft 6a.

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.

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. 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 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;

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 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 invoke a reaction from their adversaries.

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Schulz:
This seems reasonable. Louisistan supports this proposal in its current state.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'd also suggest again that the resolution be renamed "Restrictions on Perfidy in Warfare" from "ban" just to be more accurate and clear.

[Elke and Elba]

I'd also suggest again that the resolution be renamed "Restrictions on Perfidy in Warfare" from "ban" just to be more accurate and clear.

Which I don't think is possible because of the character limit for titles.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'd also suggest again that the resolution be renamed "Restrictions on Perfidy in Warfare" from "ban" just to be more accurate and clear.

Which I don't think is possible because of the character limit for titles.

"Restricting Perfidy in Warfare" then? or "Restricting Perfidy in War"?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: This is functionally similar to Article 37 of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, which is called "Prohibition of Perfidy" - so why not use that?

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: This is functionally similar to Article 37 of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, which is called "Prohibition of Perfidy" - so why not use that?

Because it's not a ban or a prohibition, which was the primary point. Some dishonesty in warfare is allowed.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: This is functionally similar to Article 37 of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, which is called "Prohibition of Perfidy" - so why not use that?

Because it's not a ban or a prohibition, which was the primary point. Some dishonesty in warfare is allowed.

Hmm, a classic point. I might want to point out dishonesty =/= perfidy.

As for Gruen, maybe. I'm just worried of using a IRL name... :/

[The Dourian Embassy]

Because it's not a ban or a prohibition, which was the primary point. Some dishonesty in warfare is allowed.

Hmm, a classic point. I might want to point out dishonesty =/= perfidy.

As for Gruen, maybe. I'm just worried of using a IRL name... :/

I should say some perfidy is allowed then. It's essentially the same point. It's not an issue that will make me vote against it or for it... it's just I'd prefer an honest title.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Convinced that every state has certain obligations (to what? itself? other belligerents? Need an operative here) even during times of war,

Believing that combatants taking advantage (see B) of these obligations to commit any perfidious act violates the rule of international law,(see A)

A: I'm really having trouble understanding the second sentence. First, let's deal with the second part of the second sentence where you have: "violates the rule of international law". If I am understanding correctly, that law hasn't been passed yet. This resolution is trying to create that "law". If such a law existed, there is no need to draft this resolution. Perhaps you mean to say that "...is a conduct that violates the sense of honour in war? Violates the spirit of war? Chivalry? moral tenets? ...something to that effect.)

B: The first part is equally difficult to absorb. So combatants have obligations...( you need to define "to whom" in the first clause as I've pointed out, if you want to stick with the word "obligation"). I'm guessing these "obligations" are things like "to be honest (not to commit perfidy)" and "to be humane (not to use excessive force)", "to be discriminate (not to kill civilians)" etc. But how do they "take advantage" of these obligations? I think those two words might be the wrong choice because you have not defined what those obligations are. Perhaps saying "Believing combatants ignoring those obligations by committing..." would be a better for clause 2? If you defined what those obligations are, there wouldn't be a problem. But because you haven't defined them, "ignoring" or "failing to respect" would be better substitudes for "taking advantage".

EDIT: I think I understand this better after I've read your Draft II which had this sentence:

"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,"

My guess is your "obligations" arose from that^. Now that you took those two sentences out, your new draft's clauses 1 and 2 lost an important reference.

Recognising that concerted international action is required in order to prevent the occurrence of such deplorable acts, (the word "in order" is not necessary. Saying "is required to" is enough.)

------------------

Suggest a complete rewrite for Clauses 1, 2, and 3 from the ground up:

Either:
Believing that member states must observe certain codes of conduct in times of war,
Expounding that chief among those is the duty not to commit perfidious acts,
Recognising that concerted international action is required to establish laws to that effect,

Or:
Believing that being at war does not discharge member states from their duty to follow international norms and practices as they relate to war,
Highlighting that member states that commit perfidious acts violate these acceptable norms,
Recognising that international legislation in this area is needed to prevent these deplorable acts,

Simpler, and clearer, imho.

~GRO~

[Aligned Planets]

I'm really having trouble understanding the second sentence. First, let's deal with the second part of the second sentence where you have: "violates the rule of international law". If I am understanding correctly, that law hasn't been passed yet. This resolution is trying to create that "law". If such a law existed, there is no need to draft this resolution. Perhaps you mean to say that "...is a conduct that violates the sense of honour in war? Violates the spirit of war? Chivalry? moral tenets? ...something to that effect.)

Completely agree with GRO here - this was the reason I suggested an edit on that in my last reply. I get what you mean, but GRO is right - if there was a violation of international law (WA resolution), then there would be no need for this proposal.

Recognising that concerted international action is required in order to prevent the occurrence of such deplorable acts, (the word "in order" is not necessary. Saying "is required to" is enough.)

Again, agree with GRO here. I'd also say that the occurrence of could also be removed without overly affecting the tone of the wording.

[Goddess Relief Office]

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.

I don't get the blue part:

"Intending to mislead" -- We can't prohibit an intent. I intend to be Evil Dictator committing atrocities everywhere but it's not against the law.

"c) representing any message of intent understood universally," --- "understood universally" is fluff. If it is not "understood universally", it won't be a misleading act. If I lie to someone who doesn't speak my language, nothing happens since he doesn't understand me.

"to seek protection and/or protected status. "-- I'm not sure I have seen a "hung" clause like this before in GA resolutions. I understand it's meant to be read as a continuation from a), b), and c) but the placement is just weird.


Suggest rewrite:
3. 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,

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.

Last line is not needed. It is implied. If you must have it, it can be added to the top so we don't have something "hanging" at the bottom.


Suggest rewrite:
7. 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 invoke a reaction from their adversaries.

----------------

Hope this helps.

~GRO~

[Elke and Elba]

All changes made as proposed by GRO and AP at viewtopic.php?p=20099310#p20099310 (Draft 6a).

Blaming this on "the original 3am typing proposal stuff", but it's almost 5am here.

[Elke and Elba]

Hmm, a classic point. I might want to point out dishonesty =/= perfidy.

As for Gruen, maybe. I'm just worried of using a IRL name... :/

I should say some perfidy is allowed then. It's essentially the same point. It's not an issue that will make me vote against it or for it... it's just I'd prefer an honest title.

Hmm? As in well, it doesn't make sense to me because while some kind of dishonestly is allowed, I can't say the same for perfidy.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Hmm? As in well, it doesn't make sense to me because while some kind of dishonestly is allowed, I can't say the same for perfidy.

OOC: Agreed. The proposal prohibits perfidy. Anything not prohibited isn't perfidy. There is no ambiguity.

---

Coming at this proposal from a different angle, do you actually need to provide a generalised definition of perfidy? Articles 2-4 spell out clearly what perfidy is, without the need for the general definition in Article 1; all that's left is that "including, but not limited to" qualifier. Well, why shouldn't it be limited to that? Or, if there is any other form of perfidy, then that should be spelled out too. Then, you could omit the generalised definition entirely and omit the predictable attempts to distort that into something completely bizarre.

[Roww]

I'm sure this question has already been answered, but does this not fall under any other WA Resolution?
Pardon the ignorance, if this has already been discussed...

High General Cole,
Supreme Commander,
The Dictatorship of Roww

[Elke and Elba]

I'm sure this question has already been answered, but does this not fall under any other WA Resolution?
Pardon the ignorance, if this has already been discussed...

High General Cole,
Supreme Commander,
The Dictatorship of Roww
(Image)

OOC: Somehow it hasn't been covered. I was equally astonished when I went through the list of Passed Resolutions at first.

GRO's changes for preamble redone and integrated.

[Elke and Elba]

Draft 6b.

Gruen & GRO points addressed (fully?)

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 and also not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;

4. 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;

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 invoke a reaction from their adversaries.

[Elke and Elba]

Does any other nation have any comments on the draft, perhaps changes?

I do wish Gruen to take a look again, since I might not have understood fully the meaning of his reply.

EnE

[Aligned Planets]

Does any other nation have any comments on the draft, perhaps changes?

I'll have a look through again later this evening

[The New Hellenic State]

In support.

Speaking of WA insignia is anyone in favor of establishing WA peacekeeping forces?

[Separatist Peoples]

In support.

Speaking of WA insignia is anyone in favor of establishing WA peacekeeping forces?

"Such an attempt would be illegal."