[PASSED] Protected Status in Wartime

[Jlink]

jean trudy supports!

I voted for it

[Defwa]

OOC: In my position as slightly drunk Lieutenant Tuvok, have an early for vote from the DSA

[Mundiferrum]

Supported before, now supported again. You have our for vote, plus a gift basket of honey, dates, pine nuts, and a fine rosé.

[Separatist Peoples]

It is called Warfare, not Warfair. There is no such thing as fairness in war. It is you, your enemy, and whatever tricks, feints, assaults, etc. you can muster. If you think your enemy is going to play fair, then you are naive. Legislation such as this will only snowball into the eventuality that the mere act of even considering war will be considered a war crime. You destroy your enemies. If you do not, they will destroy you.

"This view, ambassador, has been proven to be false three or four times before, and even works very well on that reality simulation game known as "The Real World". Your assumptions about how war works has been proven to be categorically wrong at every turn there. I hope it hurts to be that incorrect, because it really ought to."

"To my supporters thus far, as always, I appreciate your support and well-wishes! I hope to be celebrating with you all in the Bar in three and a half days time!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"To my supporters thus far, as always, I appreciate your support and well-wishes! I hope to be celebrating with you all in the Bar in three and a half days time!"

'On that front... I found a bottle of wine you missed in that office we raided. I'll be glad to share it with you either now, since our resolution passed, or maybe in a few days time, after your resolution, hopefully, passes. Best of luck, Bell! May the office raids continue!' Parsons gets back on his horse, dons white gloves, and rides down the hall on the way back to his office.

[Caracasus]

From the resolution at discussion.

1. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not falsely utilize the protected status accompanying the symbols or uniforms unique to
humanitarian relief workers or organizations, or unarmed medical personnel.

2. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not falsely utilize the protected status accompanying the symbols or uniforms of neutral or uninvolved parties with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, otherwise disguising forces to execute a military objective, or for the general purpose of upsetting the neutrality of any party.

War is, we believe, a rather nasty business, with a great deal of scope for people getting shot, regardless of what side they are on (if any). We do not wish to see any potential justification for armed groups and nations invading, attacking or (in the case of humanitarian aid) refusing entry. We feel that this legislation effectively and neatly removes potential justifications for attacking or removing neutral civilians or humanitarian aid groups, and makes war slightly less dangerous for innocent non-combatants. Therefore we are fully behind this and would challenge anyone to provide a coherent, morally acceptable argument as to why this legislation should not pass.

[Guy]

During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of ... shielding themselves from enemy action ... with the singular exception of those individuals escaping Prisoner of War status as defined by WA law.

1) We all know how likely it is for GA resolutions to get repealed, so I'm not a fan of the house of cards there.

2) On a natural reading, it means you can't escape execution.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This legislation contradicts itself. The last clause "none of this shall be construed to prevent ruses..." But that's exactly what it does. Great Intel is gathered by imbedding troops desguised as civilian personnel. Gaining intelligence is a military objective. This law prohibits the use of subterfuge as a means of gaining valuable intelligence that would mitigate collateral damage. This legislation is going to cause more innocent deaths than it prevents.

[Caracasus]

This legislation contradicts itself. The last clause "none of this shall be construed to prevent ruses..." But that's exactly what it does. Great Intel is gathered by imbedding troops desguised as civilian personnel. Gaining intelligence is a military objective. This law prohibits the use of subterfuge as a means of gaining valuable intelligence that would mitigate collateral damage. This legislation is going to cause more innocent deaths than it prevents.

We are under the impression that the section quoted refers to preventing ruses in general and should not be read that way. It does, of course, place strict limits on said ruses.

3. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective, with the singular exception of those individuals escaping Prisoner of War status as defined by WA law.

Gathering military intelligence previous to an armed conflict by disguising yourselves as civilian noncombatants would most certainly provoke some form of retribution against civilian groups in the area. Whilst we accept that not gaining said intelligence may cause a longer and more drawn out war, resulting in greater loss of life, in this instance the principle that troops may not disguise themselves as civilian noncombatants should lead to fewer villages burnt to the ground in search of enemy combatants, for example. On balance, this proposal seeks to protect civilians and humanitarian aid. Without this, nations could claim justification for attacking humanitarian aid, or indeed refusing humanitarian aid entry to a war zone.

[Jarish Inyo]

We've voted against this proposal. And in the event that it does pass, the gnomes (hired away from the WA compliance department at great expense) in our international law department has assured us that most of protective status can easily be be nullified. They have already submitted a detailed report.

Caracasus, this proposal does not stop a nation from refusing humanitarian aid entry to a war zone.

[Caracasus]

We noticed that. It does, however, ensure that WA nations do not use humanitarian aid as a cover for military operations. This makes it less likely for humanitarian aid to be blocked, or targeted. We apologise if this was not clear in our statement.

[Separatist Peoples]

During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of ... shielding themselves from enemy action ... with the singular exception of those individuals escaping Prisoner of War status as defined by WA law.

1) We all know how likely it is for GA resolutions to get repealed, so I'm not a fan of the house of cards there.

"Fortunately, it is not a HoC violation. Should The PoW Accord be repealed, which I fully intend to do and replace, any follow-up resolution will contain the then Prisoner of War. As such, the gap will be filled. The concern is de minimus and has been thoroughly considered already."

2) On a natural reading, it means you can't escape execution.

"Execution of prisoners of war is illegal. If a nonmember has captured soldiers and intends to execute them, there is no legal justification for considering them anything but prisoners of war, and they can therefore escape or defend themselves."

[Separatist Peoples]

Caracasus, this proposal does not stop a nation from refusing humanitarian aid entry to a war zone.

"No, that's a different drafting room entirely. This too shall at least be submitted."

[Jarish Inyo]

We noticed that. It does, however, ensure that WA nations do not use humanitarian aid as a cover for military operations. This makes it less likely for humanitarian aid to be blocked, or targeted. We apologise if this was not clear in our statement.

That's not true. Denying medical support and supplied to the enemy is still a valid objective in war. All of which humanitarian organizations provide. Not to mention criminal organizations that can take said aid to sale or control the local population. Simply put, there is the same amount, if not more, chance that humanitarian aid will be targeted or blocked.

[Caracasus]

We noticed that. It does, however, ensure that WA nations do not use humanitarian aid as a cover for military operations. This makes it less likely for humanitarian aid to be blocked, or targeted. We apologise if this was not clear in our statement.

That's not true. Denying medical support and supplied to the enemy is still a valid objective in war. All of which humanitarian organizations provide. Not to mention criminal organizations that can take said aid to sale or control the local population. Simply put, there is the same amount, if not more, chance that humanitarian aid will be targeted or blocked.

So you are claiming that ensuring no WA member state can disguise its troops as humanitarian aid will have no effect or may increase the chance of nations barring humanitarian aid? That strikes us as a little strange.

[Separatist Peoples]

That's not true. Denying medical support and supplied to the enemy is still a valid objective in war. All of which humanitarian organizations provide. Not to mention criminal organizations that can take said aid to sale or control the local population. Simply put, there is the same amount, if not more, chance that humanitarian aid will be targeted or blocked.

So you are claiming that ensuring no WA member state can disguise its troops as humanitarian aid will have no effect or may increase the chance of nations barring humanitarian aid? That strikes us as a little strange.

"I wouldn't engage Ambassador Nameless too fully: often his claims are based off interpretations no sane government would make. A large portion of the veteran ambassadors here have reprogrammed their universal translators to interpret his replies as elevator music for their own mental health."

[Jarish Inyo]

So you are claiming that ensuring no WA member state can disguise its troops as humanitarian aid will have no effect or may increase the chance of nations barring humanitarian aid? That strikes us as a little strange.

"I wouldn't engage Ambassador Nameless too fully: often his claims are based off interpretations no sane government would make. A large portion of the veteran ambassadors here have reprogrammed their universal translators to interpret his replies as elevator music for their own mental health."

They do so because they don't like to face the harsh reality of things or do not like to hear opposition to their resolutions.

Caracasus, it's not strange. You seem to forget that WA resolutions don't apply to non WA nations. That means that they can still disguise their troops as humanitarian aid. They are also more likely to attack humanitarian aid once it is known that WA nation troops will not hidden among them. And again, you forget about well armed criminal organizations that can also take advantage of this knowledge. So ensuring that no WA member state can disguise its troops as humanitarian aid will have no effect or may increase the chance of nations barring humanitarian aid.

[Separatist Peoples]

They do so because they don't like to face the harsh reality of things or do not like to hear opposition to their resolutions.

Hardly. They do so because they have no desire to engage in debates founded on deliberate misinterpretations of rational concepts and rejoinders that boil down to "Nuh-uh cuz Nuh-uh!"

Caracasus, it's not strange. You seem to forget that WA resolutions don't apply to non WA nations. That means that they can still disguise their troops as humanitarian aid. They are also more likely to attack humanitarian aid once it is known that WA nation troops will not hidden among them. And again, you forget about well armed criminal organizations that can also take advantage of this knowledge. So ensuring that no WA member state can disguise its troops as humanitarian aid will have no effect or may increase the chance of nations barring humanitarian aid.

"Pretending for a moment that all nonmember states actually are bloodthirsty barbarians, what possible motive for attacking humanitarian aid organizations are there in the first place? Member states cannot blockade medical transports, so it's not as though they can't acquire medical supplies otherwise, instead of diverting valuable men and weapons to mindlessly slaughter aid workers. The argument is specious and outright insulting to nonmember states."

[Jarish Inyo]

My points are not founded on deliberate misinterpretations of rational concepts. Nor do they boil down to "Nuh-uh cuz Nuh-uh!" It's not my fault that other could not refute my points.

Humanitarian aid is more then just medical supplies. While medical supplies and medical personnel can not be blockaded, everything else can be. So, food, water, shelters and equipment can be.

As you want to focus on motives for attacking, there are several. Preventing such things reaching the so called civilian population. Needed said items to resupply themselves. Not every military can resupply their units in a timely fashion. Those are just two reasons off the top of my head for attacking. Like it or not, both do happen in the real world today.

Lets not forget that they can disguise their military convoys as humanitarian aid and move their troops and equipment where they like without any concern. And while in that disguise, attack.

[Separatist Peoples]

My points are not founded on deliberate misinterpretations of rational concepts. Nor do they boil down to "Nuh-uh cuz Nuh-uh!" It's not my fault that other could not refute my points.

"Yes, ambassador, you're just the paragon of debating skills. Web refutations are proffered, you tend to immediately restate your last point. Like right now."

Humanitarian aid is more then just medical supplies. While medical supplies and medical personnel can not be blockaded, everything else can be. So, food, water, shelters and equipment can be.

"Relevant clause of Medical Provisions in Blockade:"

"Medical supplies" as any item or collection of items that are used in the delivery of medical advice and/or analysis, as well as the maintenance of general health, inclusive of, but not limited to : medications, medicinal clothing, apparel, surgical equipment, medical examination devices, and medical reference;

"Generally, food and water count as "items that are used in the maintenance of general health." In fact, since dehydration and malnutrition are medical maladies, there's no reason to assume they aren't covered as medical supplies. Unless you're up for some interpretive gymnastics."

As you want to focus on motives for attacking, there are several. Preventing such things reaching the so called civilian population. Needed said items to resupply themselves. Not every military can resupply their units in a timely fashion. Those are just two reasons off the top of my head for attacking. Like it or not, both do happen in the real world today.

"Indeed they do. That doesn't mean it should be legal, and that doesn't mean that pirating a few convoys, which will inevitably stop once they become consistently targeted, will be efficient compared to the myriad other options available. It is also, funnily enough, not the topic of this proposal."

Lets not forget that they can disguise their military convoys as humanitarian aid and move their troops and equipment where they like without any concern. And while in that disguise, attack.

"This law seeks to make that illegal. Just because nonmembers can potentially do so doesn't mean members should be allowed to do so. At any rate, such a move would be incredibly obvious, as humanitarian doctors don't drive tanks or carry rifles, and even if they utilize the disguises to move, and not attack, nothing prevents member states from checking humanitarian supplies for contraband. At all. Ever."

[Jarish Inyo]

My points are not founded on deliberate misinterpretations of rational concepts. Nor do they boil down to "Nuh-uh cuz Nuh-uh!" It's not my fault that other could not refute my points.

"Yes, ambassador, you're just the paragon of debating skills. Web refutations are proffered, you tend to immediately restate your last point. Like right now."

Humanitarian aid is more then just medical supplies. While medical supplies and medical personnel can not be blockaded, everything else can be. So, food, water, shelters and equipment can be.

"Relevant clause of Medical Provisions in Blockade:"

"Medical supplies" as any item or collection of items that are used in the delivery of medical advice and/or analysis, as well as the maintenance of general health, inclusive of, but not limited to : medications, medicinal clothing, apparel, surgical equipment, medical examination devices, and medical reference;

"Generally, food and water count as "items that are used in the maintenance of general health." In fact, since dehydration and malnutrition are medical maladies, there's no reason to assume they aren't covered as medical supplies. Unless you're up for some interpretive gymnastics."

As you want to focus on motives for attacking, there are several. Preventing such things reaching the so called civilian population. Needed said items to resupply themselves. Not every military can resupply their units in a timely fashion. Those are just two reasons off the top of my head for attacking. Like it or not, both do happen in the real world today.

"Indeed they do. That doesn't mean it should be legal, and that doesn't mean that pirating a few convoys, which will inevitably stop once they become consistently targeted, will be efficient compared to the myriad other options available. It is also, funnily enough, not the topic of this proposal."

Lets not forget that they can disguise their military convoys as humanitarian aid and move their troops and equipment where they like without any concern. And while in that disguise, attack.

"This law seeks to make that illegal. Just because nonmembers can potentially do so doesn't mean members should be allowed to do so. At any rate, such a move would be incredibly obvious, as humanitarian doctors don't drive tanks or carry rifles, and even if they utilize the disguises to move, and not attack, nothing prevents member states from checking humanitarian supplies for contraband. At all. Ever."

And again, you are not refuting my points.

In fact you are making some of my points for me.

You don't need some interpretive gymnastics not to count food and water as medical supplies at all. Especially when you take into account that food and water is not necessary to treat such maladies. Medical science has created ways to treat them without the need of either. Even if neither of them are idea in the long run.

Legality is dependent if one is a member of the WA.

Nor did I ever state that attacking or using a humanitarian aid convoy as a disguise should be legal. I pointed out that the concept that this resolution would lessen the chance of humanitarian aid from being attacked or banned was not correct. That the chances remained the same or potentially become higher.

It is naive of you to think it would be incredibly obvious for someone to use humanitarian aid as a cover to move troops and supplies around. To begin, humanitarian aid organizations can have hired armed security contractors. If said organizations are using large trucks to move things around, then a military unit can used similar vehicles marked up to move large amount of troops and supplies around. There are things that prevent WA nations checking for humanitarian aid. WA nations can not cover every crossroad to check humanitarian aid for contraband.

[Caracasus]

"I wouldn't engage Ambassador Nameless too fully: often his claims are based off interpretations no sane government would make. A large portion of the veteran ambassadors here have reprogrammed their universal translators to interpret his replies as elevator music for their own mental health."

They do so because they don't like to face the harsh reality of things or do not like to hear opposition to their resolutions.

Caracasus, it's not strange. You seem to forget that WA resolutions don't apply to non WA nations. That means that they can still disguise their troops as humanitarian aid. They are also more likely to attack humanitarian aid once it is known that WA nation troops will not hidden among them. And again, you forget about well armed criminal organizations that can also take advantage of this knowledge. So ensuring that no WA member state can disguise its troops as humanitarian aid will have no effect or may increase the chance of nations barring humanitarian aid.

Er - surely this prevents using the cover/disguise of humanitarian aid vehicles/transports to commit acts of war I.E. using said transports to move in large numbers of troops and conduct military maneuvers. There is nothing in this resolution that forbids sending a small force to protect convoys and camps, negotiating with de facto or de jure governments to provide protection or indeed a (probably far in the future) WA "army" division with the sole purpose of protecting aid convoys, storage and camps. We are sure the good ambassador is as aware as we are that it is often, unfortunately necessary for a small armed force to accompany humanitarian aid currently to discourage armed gangs from raiding convoys in some particularly lawless areas.

Again this resolution 1) Outlaws disguising armed forces as humanitarian aid for WA member nations(among other things).

Therefore, nations which are in need of humanitarian aid will not be able to use fear of surprise attack as a justification to either block or destroy humanitarian aid convoys. Most nations do tend to care about how they are perceived on the world stage and would have to provide some kind of justification for blocking much needed humanitarian aid. This removes a rather flimsy justification that may otherwise be made.

It also, you know, stops armed forces disguising themselves as humanitarian aid convoys. That's basically a good thing.

[The Socialist Howarth Isles]

Vote YES
~Ed

[Jarish Inyo]

Er - surely this prevents using the cover/disguise of humanitarian aid vehicles/transports to commit acts of war I.E. using said transports to move in large numbers of troops and conduct military maneuvers.

No, this does not prevent that. Non WA nations can still using the cover/disguise of humanitarian aid vehicles/transports to commit acts of war using humanitarian transports to move in large numbers of troops and conduct military maneuvers without any restrictions.

There is nothing in this resolution that forbids sending a small force to protect convoys and camps, negotiating with de facto or de jure governments to provide protection or indeed a (probably far in the future) WA "army" division with the sole purpose of protecting aid convoys, storage and camps.

By using military units to protect aid convoys, storage and camps would remove their protective status and make said convoys, storage and camps valid military targets.

It also, you know, stops armed forces disguising themselves as humanitarian aid convoys. That's basically a good thing.

Actually, it does not stop armed forces disguising themselves as humanitarian aid convoys. Any non WA armed forces can disguise themselves as humanitarian aid convoys and civilians. Only WA nations can not disguise themselves as humanitarian aid convoys and civilians.

Again this resolution 1) Outlaws disguising armed forces as humanitarian aid for WA member nations(among other things).

Therefore, nations which are in need of humanitarian aid will not be able to use fear of surprise attack as a justification to either block or destroy humanitarian aid convoys. Most nations do tend to care about how they are perceived on the world stage and would have to provide some kind of justification for blocking much needed humanitarian aid. This removes a rather flimsy justification that may otherwise be made.

Again, not true. As repeatedly pointed out, non WA nations and criminal organizations are still freely allowed to continue such tactics. Having the WA not being able to disguising armed forces as humanitarian aid doesn't remove the fear of surprise attack as a justification to either block or destroy humanitarian aid convoys. It is still a valid concern of every nation.

[Caracasus]

The only clear argument we can find in your favour is that not all nations will be covered by this, as not all nations are within the WA. This appears to be an argument against the WA itself, rather than this legislation.