[PASSED] Repeal "Neutrality of Nations"

[Sionis Prioratus]

The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

ACKNOWLEDGING that indeed “it is a right of any Nation that is uninvolved in a war to make a formal claim of Neutrality”;

FULLY ACKNOWLEDGING that there were good intentions behind “Neutrality of Nations” and that the vast majority of the Ambassadors and Delegates who voted for “Neutrality of Nations” did so thinking they were actually advancing the cause of world peace; hence:

DISMAYED that despite its name, GA #14 “Neutrality of Nations” does nothing to promote world peace, but does the exact opposite;

PERPLEXED that any nation may switch between “Neutral” and “Belligerent” at any time according to the terms of the Resolution, as their mood strikes them, without any penalties and without fear of acting in violation of international war conventions;

SHOCKED that section 3.a) states that any nation can have its claim of neutrality voided on the sole basis of indirect trade (which it may ultimately have no control over) of ill-defined “supplies”, such as “goods” and “personnel”, which can encompass basic humanitarian needs such as food, potable water, medical supplies and medical personnel;

OUTRAGED that GA #14 says, in relevant part:

“2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.”

SADLY NOTING that the conditions for “improv[ing] world peace” are not defined anywhere;

REALIZING the appalling potential for extreme abuse of this single clause; it gives “Belligerent Nations” unlimited power to invade or occupy any self-proclaimed neutral nation, merely by “convincing” the World Assembly that such a shameful act will “improve world peace”.

CONVINCED that such a state of uncertainty does create an international environment where war is even more probable, instead of creating peace;

THEREFORE, in the best interests of peace, THE WORLD ASSEMBLY REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #14.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 14

Neutrality of Nations
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

The World Assembly,

BELIEVES that:
- It is a right of any Member Nation that is uninvolved in a said war to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
- War as a armed conflict between two or more Nations;
- A Neutral Nation as a nation that has formally declared itself neutral before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or hostility existing between two or more other nations, and;
- A Belligerent Nation as a nation that is currently involved in said war or a nation that is supporting the armed forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbour, aid or provide for armed forces of any Belligerent Nation or its military allies, including but not limited to: Air, Naval or Territorial Forces (but see §4);
b) Actively or covertly act to assist or support any armed forces or agents of an active Belligerent Nation or its military allies, through force or other means of supporting military action;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of the said war regardless of the level of secrecy, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict;

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded, storage of dead personnel or other war-related activity without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Enter a Neutral Nation to resource supplies for military operations, such as weapons, personnel, armaments or agents, or;
d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:
a) Directly or indirectly engage in trade or exchanges, of any kind of military supplies: goods, weapons, agents, equipment and personnel with Belligerent Nations, and;
b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by Belligerent Nations through military operations.

4. CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of §1 or §3 is knowingly and deliberately violated;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time, or;
- If the war which neutrality is sanctioned on ceases to exist and the WA is satisfied that a similar conflict will not break out for a sensible period of time.

5. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Relief Aid to civilian populations and the military wounded, but recommends that casualties receiving humanitarian aid should not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that a Neutral Nation may at their discretion, adapt any of the measures above where appropriate to protect themselves from Belligerent Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly, involving but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, or economic/trade sanctions.

APPLAUDS Nations that avoid armed conflicts for the purpose of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

[Glen-Rhodes]

d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

I'm no expert, but invading a neutral nation carries with it a large likelihood of that nation declaring war and no longer remaining neutral.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Freeoplis]

We would support this repeal on the grounds raised by our esteemed colleagues from Sionis Prioratus. Neutrality of Nations should not be conditional upon an arbitrary perspective of the bureaucrats working for the WA.

We also applaud the delegations inclusion of the legislation they seek to repeal within the thread for ease of reference.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina stands behind Sionis Prioratus in this bid for repeal of this legislation. We consider your analysis both thorough and astute.

[Sionis Prioratus]

d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

I'm no expert, but invading a neutral nation carries with it a large likelihood of that nation declaring war and no longer remaining neutral.

- Dr. B. Castro

No expertise whatsoever is needed to acknowledge that the situation Your Excellency described is the opposite of "promoting world peace", and this situation is allowed by the so-called "Neutrality of Nations".

Yours by the flower-scented paths,

Edits: typos

[Embolalia]

I had not realized that flaw. We will support this, given that a replacement is drafted prior to submission.

[Nullarni]

I completely agree with the repeal of GA 14. I was considering drafting up a proposal, but you beat me to it.

Hmmm... I don't fully agree with your reasons for the repeal, but I fully support this proposal and offer you my assistance should you need it.

[Embolalia]

I completely agree with the repeal of GA 14. I was considering drafting up a proposal, but you beat me to it.

Hmmm... I don't fully agree with your reasons for the repeal, but I fully support this proposal and offer you my assistance should you need it.

But for the reasons presented in this proposal, might we ask what your objections are?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I actually think this resolution is starting to show signs of age as more member states are now running wars with new methods: more notably the IGNORE cannon has been used more widely to affirm neutrality, and has been popular. Therefore this resolution shall be shown a bit of dignity and be retired and sent to the graveyards on the grounds of not just the arguments there, but to the constantly evolving methods of avoiding conflict which shall not be disclosed (for metagaming reasons).

Unless Adrian de Saint-Clair thinks we should keep the idea alive, which in that case we advise waiting for us to outline a replacement with improvements to address the flaws.

The future of Neutrality: Retirement or Replacement?

Yours etc,

[Glen-Rhodes]

No expertise whatsoever is needed to acknowledge that the situation Your Excellency described is the opposite of "promoting world peace", and this situation is allowed by the so-called "Neutrality of Nations".

How is not invading a neutral nation 'the opposite of "promoting world peace"'? How is invading a neutral nation allowed, when such invasion threatens the neutrality of that nation?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sionis Prioratus]

I actually think this resolution is starting to show signs of age as more member states are now running wars with new methods: more notably the IGNORE cannon has been used more widely to affirm neutrality, and has been popular. Therefore this resolution shall be shown a bit of dignity and be retired and sent to the graveyards on the grounds of not just the arguments there, but to the constantly evolving methods of avoiding conflict which shall not be disclosed (for metagaming reasons).

Unless Adrian de Saint-Clair thinks we should keep the idea alive, which in that case we advise waiting for us to outline a replacement with improvements to address the flaws.

The future of Neutrality: Retirement or Replacement?

Yours etc,

Given:

• Humanitarian Transport
• Prevention of Torture
• The Prisoners of War Accord
• Diplomat Protection Act
• WA Counterterrorism Act
• The Landmine Convention
• Humanitarian Aid Coordination
• Refugee Protection
• Nuclear Disaster Response Act
• Biological Weapons Conference
• Medical Blockade Restriction

...we fail to see how any replacement at all would be needed.

Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

I completely agree with the repeal of GA 14. I was considering drafting up a proposal, but you beat me to it.

Hmmm... I don't fully agree with your reasons for the repeal, but I fully support this proposal and offer you my assistance should you need it.

We are interested in knowing what Your Excellency's specific objections are.

Yours in curiosity,

[Sionis Prioratus]

How is not invading a neutral nation 'the opposite of "promoting world peace"'?

Your Excellency is confused. All in all, GA #14 allows for the invasion of neutral nations.

How is invading a neutral nation allowed, when such invasion threatens the neutrality of that nation?

The resolution itself:

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.

Thanks for reading.

Yours under the gaze of ten thousand illuminated rabbis,

[Nullarni]

But for the reasons presented in this proposal, might we ask what your objections are?

We are interested in knowing what Your Excellency's specific objections are.

Yours in curiosity,

Actually, upon reading the proposal again, my objections have been covered.

I was thinking that the majority of the arguement against the resolution was based around the statement "REALIZING the obviousness of the potential for abuse of this single clause; for it gives Belligerent Nations unfettered power to invade or occupy any self-proclaimed Neutral Nation, merely by 'convincing' the World Assembly such a shameful act will 'improve world peace'". I think that really is a minor issue.

My issue was the fact that nations can switch between Neutral and Belligerent status as the mood strikes them. That makes the entire resolution completely pointless and quite frankly, begs to be extremely abused. This resolution becomes a protection of clever and agressive nations, completely negating the very reason it was passed.

Of course, as I said previously, this has been covered in the proposal. ("PERPLEXED that any nation may switch between Neutral and Belligerent at any time according to the terms of the Resolution, according to its own strategy, without penalty or fear of acting outside international law.")

I fully support the wording and arguements of this proposal.

[Hiriaurtung Arororugul]

I tried to repeal this abominable resolution once and the lunatics who make up the membership of this organization voted it down. Godspeed Ambassador Saint-Clair. Avenge me!

[Glen-Rhodes]

Thanks for reading.

So was I speaking a foreign language, or did I not talk loudly enough?

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

...we fail to see how any replacement at all would be needed.

None of those resolutions make it illegal to invade a neutral nation during way. So, if we want to do that, we would need a replacement.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I actually think this resolution is starting to show signs of age as more member states are now running wars with new methods: more notably the IGNORE cannon has been used more widely to affirm neutrality, and has been popular. Therefore this resolution shall be shown a bit of dignity and be retired and sent to the graveyards on the grounds of not just the arguments there, but to the constantly evolving methods of avoiding conflict which shall not be disclosed (for metagaming reasons).

Unless Adrian de Saint-Clair thinks we should keep the idea alive, which in that case we advise waiting for us to outline a replacement with improvements to address the flaws.

The future of Neutrality: Retirement or Replacement?

Yours etc,

Given:

• Humanitarian Transport
• Prevention of Torture
• The Prisoners of War Accord
• Diplomat Protection Act
• WA Counterterrorism Act
• The Landmine Convention
• Humanitarian Aid Coordination
• Refugee Protection
• Nuclear Disaster Response Act
• Biological Weapons Conference
• Medical Blockade Restriction

...we fail to see how any replacement at all would be needed.

Yours,

Then I would appreciate some clause that notes, alongside the arguments, the "changes of methods used in avoiding conflict with a belligerent nation, and the continuing social progress of the world, making the resolution concerned no longer necessary for promoting world peace"... before ending with:

THEREFORE, in the best interests of, and to continue the promotion of world peace, the World Assembly RETIRES General Assembly Resolution #14, "Neutrality of Nations".

We feel that our arguments for its retirement has been the progress of the WA since its first passage. It was good while it lasted, but we don't need it anymore thanks to the IGNORE cannon.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Thanks for reading.

So was a) I speaking a foreign language, or b) did I not talk loudly enough?

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

We do not think neither a) nor b) are probable, actually, we think Your Excellency must have been indulging in Your Excellency's deplorable opium addiction.

The internal contradiction is clear.

...we fail to see how any replacement at all would be needed.

None of those resolutions make it illegal to invade a neutral nation during way.

For what it is worth, neither does GA #14.

So, if we want to do that, we would need a replacement.

Goddess help us.

Yours in awe while looking at surrealist paintings of waves killing whales,

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

we don't need it anymore thanks to the IGNORE cannon.

The IGNORE cannon existed long before this thing was passed, so by your own logic it was never needed in the first place.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

we don't need it anymore thanks to the IGNORE cannon.

The IGNORE cannon existed long before this thing was passed, so by your own logic it was never needed in the first place.

OOC: I'm not an expert in International Incidents, I probably got more aware of the war techniques when we moved back to self-hosting.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The internal contradiction is clear.

No it's not, but I doubt that will stop you from crusading. 2d prevents exploitation of 2a. Plain and simple.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sionis Prioratus]

I tried to repeal this abominable resolution once and the lunatics who make up the membership of this organization voted it down. Godspeed Ambassador Saint-Clair. Avenge me!

How interesting! Yes, General, we shall try until our very last drop of BLOOD!

♬Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all♬

[Sionis Prioratus]

The internal contradiction is clear.

No it's not,

Yes, it is.

[Sionis Prioratus]

[...]before ending with:

THEREFORE, in the best interests of, and to continue the promotion of world peace, the World Assembly RETIRES General Assembly Resolution #14, "Neutrality of Nations".

Your Excellency, we have just talked to the Bureaucrats Who Manage Those Things and they told us they never even heard of a "Retirement" function, only a "Repeal" one.

We should not be commenting this, but they also added whoever said there was a "retirement" function should have been drunk, for the World Assembly budget is meager enough as it is, they could never afford to pay pensions to retired resolutions.

[Nullarni]

We should not be commenting this, but they also added whoever said there was a "retirement" function should have been drunk, for the World Assembly budget is meager enough as it is, they could never afford to pay pensions to retired resolutions.

Yes, we hear that resolution retirement plans are extremely expensive. It is definately better to simply repeal them.