[FAILED TO PASS] Submarine Warfare Resolution

[Sternberg]

Proposal First Begun: 02/01/2014
Proposal First Submitted: 26/07/2014
Second Submission: 02/02/2015
Last Edit Date: 02/02/2015

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Authored By: The Royal Imperium of Sternberg

The General Assembly,

RECOGNISING the authority of national military forces to govern and discipline their own personnel,

ACKNOWLEDGING the continual deployment of combat submarines by multiple nations to fulfill military maritime objectives,

ADDITIONALLY ACKNOWLEDGING that the conduct of submarine warfare is, by its nature, legally ambiguous and that decisions rely on the judgement of senior officers or a nation's political leaders,

CONCERNED, however, that the absence of international law on submarine warfare can be exploited by nations willing to ignore humanitarian law and related military regulations while at sea,

CONVINCED that a binding resolution on conducting submarine warfare should be legally enshrined in order to address legal, humanitarian and military concerns,

Hereby:

1. DEFINES:

1. “Military submarine” as any armed, military-owned and operated submersible that is designed for underwater combat operations; and
2. “Unrestricted Submarine Warfare” as standing orders or practice to deliberately target ships, regardless of:
   
   1. Declared nationality,
   2. The target's port of origin, destination or present location,
   3. The ship's purpose and combatant status of its crew, and
   4. As part of preemptive military operations;

2. DECLARES the deliberate targeting of non-combatant vessels without justifiable cause to be a war crime.

3. FORBIDS and considers the following to be a criminal action to attack:

1. Any civilian or commercial vessel which - based on available intelligence such as observed behaviour, course and communications - can be clearly identified, prior to and during operations, as:
   
   1. Not purposed or assigned to transporting military assets or cargo,
   2. Not armed or travelling under military escort,
   3. Clearly marked as internationally-protected or non-combatant, or
   4. Originating from a nation not involved with the conflict and that does not, in any form, provide assistance to a combatant's war effort;
2. Any warship that has clearly and credibly signalled its surrender.

4. MANDATES that World Assembly member nations are to investigate and prosecute any personnel under their jurisdiction found to have been in violation of this resolution.

5. CLARIFIES that situations involving unusual circumstances such as:

1. Accidental sinking, if any sunken ships that conform under Article 3 were not intended to be sunk,
2. Failure to yield, where vessels that deliberately intrude into neutral, sovereign or internationally-declared waters:
   
   1. Perpetually fail to heed warnings to halt or alter course, other than due to communication or mechanical failure, or duress from a third party, or
   2. Actively resist reasonable, legally permissible orders to be boarded and inspected;
   or
3. Any acts of perfidy,

Must be individually assessed post-incident to determine the incident's circumstances, establish any culpability of the submarine's crew and determine any mitigating factors that were out of their control.

Previous Draft

The General Assembly,

RECOGNISES the authority of national military forces to govern and discipline their own personnel,

ACKNOWLEDGING the continual deployment of combat submarines by multiple nations in order to fulfill military objectives in varying conflicts,

ADDITIONALLY ACKNOWLEDGING that the conduct of submarine warfare is, by its nature, legally ambiguous and that decisions usually rely on the judgement of senior officers in command or by a nation's political leaders,

CONCERNED, however, that the absence of any international law on submarine warfare can be exploited by 'pariah' commanders or nations willing to ignore humanitarian law and military regulations while in pursuit of their objectives,

CONVINCED that a protocol on the conduct of submarine warfare should be legally enshrined in order to jointly address reasonable legal, humanitarian and military concerns,

Hereby:

1. DEFINES:

1. “Military submarine” as any submersible ship:
   
   I. Expressly owned and operated by or on behalf of a nation’s armed forces (government-ordained or privately controlled),
   II. Armed, equipped and capable of disabling and sinking other vessels,
   III. Utilised in the pursuit of combative military objectives at sea; and
   IV. Excepting vessels that are purposed for non-combatant tasks, such as underwater surveying,
2. “Submarine Warfare” as any form of combative naval operation prosecuted by one or more military submarines; and
3. “Unrestricted Submarine Warfare” as standing orders or practice to deliberately target ships, regardless of:
   
   I. Declared nationality,
   II. The target's port of origin, destination or present location,
   III. The ship's purpose and combatant status of the crew; and
   IV. As part of preemptive military action during peace and in war.

2. DECLARES the deliberate targeting of non-combatant vessels without justifiable cause to be a war crime,

3. FORBIDS and considers the following to be part of deliberate, criminal action to attack:

1. Any civilian or commercial vessel which - based on available intelligence such as observed behaviour, course and communications - can be clearly identified, prior to and during operations, as:
   
   I. Not purposed or assigned to transporting military assets or cargo,
   II. Not armed or travelling under military convoy escort,
   III. Clearly marked as internationally-protected or non-combatant, or
   IV. Clarified as originating from a nation uninvolved with the conflict and does not, in any form, provide assistance to a combatant's war effort.
2. Any warship that has clearly and credibly signaled its intent to surrender; or
3. Any surviving crew members and non-combatants from sunken vessels, unless the submarine's crew are at significant, demonstratable risk of falling under attack from said survivors.

4. MANDATES that World Assembly member nations are to investigate and prosecute any personnel over which they have jurisdiction and found to have been in violation of this protocol.

5. CLARIFIES that situations involving unusual circumstances such as:

1. Accidental sinking, where any sunken ships that conform under Article 3 were not ordered to be sunk,
2. Friendly fire,
3. Failure to yield, by which vessels that deliberately intrude into neutral, sovereign or internationally-declared waters:
   
   I. Perpetually fail to heed warnings to halt or alter course other then due to communications or mechanical failure, or undue duress from a third party, or
   II. Actively resist reasonable, legally permissible orders to be boarded and inspected;
   or
4. Acts of perfidy – disguised merchant raiders, enemy “false flag” operations or other forms of deception intended to deceive or assist in destroying enemy vessels

[/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list]
Must be individually assessed to determine the incident's circumstances, establish any culpability of the submarine's crew and determine any mitigating factors that were out of the submarine commander's control.

[Ainocra]

no

[The Dark Star Republic]

"This is a really interesting and well composed draft. Whatever our opinion of the underlying idea, we look forward to seeing this proposal develop.

"My concern is with Article 2. 'Condemns' does not have the force of an actual prohibition: that means that the urge to investigate and prosecute in Article 3 doesn't amount to much. It may seem needlessly petty, but if you wish to outlaw specific practices, you need to explicitly 'Prohibit', 'Ban', 'Enjoin against', or use some other appropriate activating verb.

"I also don't think Article 4 is particularly good in its current form. It may be legal, but the idea of convening summary war crimes tribunals is pretty unheralded. I would suggest trying to fold such measures into a general scheme of international oversight, such as 'Recommends that relevant international bodies with appropriate authority convene tribunals to investigate, and where necessary prosecute...'"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: Also, I definitely agree on the category as GD, Mild. The character limit is ~3,500, including spaces, meaning you're a little over, but I wouldn't worry too much about that to begin with.

[Herzil]

I think your draft is well written!!!!.

I do however have a problem with 2 things:

First issue is with the Term: "Neutral Vessel" . One might see nation (X) declaring its vessel neurtral but (X) has diplomatic ties to one of the sides, therefor her vessel will be targted and probably bombed down. So I think you need to maybe clarify the term a bit more (so we wont see a repeal on that basis).

Second issue is with section 3 - You ask the World Assembly to find and prosecute militarty personals aka the "Captains" but in fact a captain doesnt operate on his own, and his actions are forced by & are common knowledge to his Government.
Therefor I think you should amend section 3 so the WA will find & prosecute the nation Government as the captain is merely an instrument( a pawn).

[Zolonya]

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:

a) “Military submarine” as any submersible ship:
I. Expressly owned by a nation’s navy and crewed by said nation’s military personnel,

Not all submarines are necisarilly employed by a nation's navy. Submersibles owned by a distinct branch could circumvent this legislation. Changing the wording from and to or would solve that issue. However a mercenary ship could be exempt. A submersible "operated by a nation's military" might be a better definition. Simpler and harder to exploit.

[Sternberg]

OK, second, altered draft of this resolution (accounting for all suggestions so far) has ben posted in opening thread. Thanks for the feedback so far, everyone.

[Sciongrad]

We very much like the concept behind this. There are a few issues in the current draft though that we would like to address. I'll comment more specifically on the content later.

The General Assembly,

REAFFIRMS its commitment to the promotion of international peace and goodwill,

d) “Neutral Vessel”, in parallel with GA. #255 ’Rights of Neutral States’, as any maritime traffic expressly identified as belonging to that of any nation not involved in the prosecution of conflict with another nation and/or not designed or purposed to be utilised as such.[/blocktext]

RECOGNISES the authority of national and regional military forces to maintain, govern and discipline their own personnel in accordance with their own regulations and in accordance with international law,

UNDERSTANDS the ambiguous nature of submarine warfare, as well as the accepted fact that the actions that are carried out in said engagements usually rely on the judgement of those in command - whether of a ship or groups of vessels - and the political leaders of a nation,

IS CONCERNED that the conflicting natures of submarine warfare and the requirements of military R.O.E. rules of engagement may result in confusion during conflict or exploited by less scrupulous nations who would deliberately violate national / World Assembly resolutions on military conduct during wartime and any standing R.O.E. rules of engagement.

ALARMED that seemingly few, if any, internationally-defined standards are expressed in World Assembly legislation that define any standards within this aspect of naval warfare,

To these ends, hereby:

1. DEFINES “unrestricted submarine warfare” as a standing order or practice (practise is the verb form of practice, if I'm correct - you're using it as a noun here), in time of war, to deliberately target and sink all maritime traffic - regardless of purpose - without warning and in violation of international law; “submarine warfare” as any form of naval engagement - including, but not limited to: conflict between military ships (submersible and/or surface ships), Anti-Submarine Warfare (A.S.W.), tracking of individual ships and so on - actively prosecuted by a military submarine; “rules of engagement” (or “R.O.E.”) as any national standing orders to a nation’s navy regarding expected conduct during a battle or extended period of conflict, as well as guidelines behind what vessels are expected to be engaged and/or sunk; Rules of engagement are not used meaningfully anywhere else - don't define things that you don't use again.“military submarine” as any submersible ship:

1. Expressly owned and operated by a nation’s military and crewed by said nation’s military personnel,
   
2. Capable of being armed with weapons - such as anti-ship torpedoes, mines and guided missiles - for the purpose to attack, disable or sink opposing vessels, and
   
3. Utilised in the pursuit of military objectives at sea, primarily the tracking, disabling or sinking of another vessel;

2. FORBIDS the indiscriminate use of submarine warfare to deliberately attack:

a) Any vessel, civilian or military, which is clearly denoted and recognised as being part of a neutral nation uninvolved within an active conflict and can be confirmed as such. This is on the condition that said vessel or the nation it declares for does not declare itself party to the engagement for either side; This is, in my opinion, already covered by GAR#255, making reference to it (as well as the definition) superfluous. Considering the character constraint you currently face, I would recommend eliminating this clause and much of the bold/italic code, which also uses character space.

1. Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly established as not purposed to the carrying of military cargo (eg: fishing boats, passenger liners, non-military related merchant shipping) or traffic protected by relevant World Assembly resolutions (eg: hospital ships), and
   
2. Any military vessel that has clearly signalled to a submarine its intent to surrender or withdraw from the conflict;

3. URGES Mandates that We would prefer that this clause be stronger in order to give more meaning to this resolution. Why wouldn't personnel that violate the resolution be prosecuted? W.A.-compliant member nations and regions investigate and prosecute any military personnel found to have been complicit or actively involved in the violation of the provisions of this resolution - this can be extended to include prosecution of a nation’s government if it is found that said government ordered an unrestricted attack.

4. RECOMMENDS, if deemed necessary by the World Assembly, that relevant international bodies with appropriate authority convene tribunals to investigate and, if found, prosecute any breaches of international law that involve the use of unrestricted submarine warfare. It may be worth assigning oversight duty to a specific bureaucracy, rather than just assigning the duty to anyone and everyone. That is, if you think such oversight is necessary. Because the way this is structured currently is unorthodox.

HEREBY adopts General Assembly Resolution # N - ‘Unrestricted Submarine Warfare Act’

[Separatist Peoples]

I think this runs afoul of the House of Cards rule, since this does more then just reference, in passing, a previous resolution. I think it also duplicates Medical Provisions in Blockades, since it already would cover blocking or otherwise interrupting the flow of medical provisions.

[Imperial Aaronia]

We are very supportive of this proposal, but would concur that this duplicates provision made in WAR#186 on medical supplies.

[Sternberg]

I think this runs afoul of the House of Cards rule, since this does more then just reference, in passing, a previous resolution. I think it also duplicates Medical Provisions in Blockades, since it already would cover blocking or otherwise interrupting the flow of medical provisions.

Hmm, I see.

Regarding the latter point, you're right in that the two do seem to have fairly similar goals (at least where maritime traffic is concerned), however, the intent of this draft resolution is different - to set in stone a set standard for international military submariner conduct and the restriction or abolition of the use of "unrestricted submarine warfare".

Further drafting and hammering out might allow any additional discrepancies to be resolved. Or, if the House of Cards resolution fallacy is confirmed, then this draft resolution will be scrapped.

[Separatist Peoples]

I think this runs afoul of the House of Cards rule, since this does more then just reference, in passing, a previous resolution. I think it also duplicates Medical Provisions in Blockades, since it already would cover blocking or otherwise interrupting the flow of medical provisions.

Hmm, I see.

Regarding the latter point, you're right in that the two do seem to have fairly similar goals (at least where maritime traffic is concerned), however, the intent of this draft resolution is different - to set in stone a set standard for international military submariner conduct and the restriction or abolition of the use of "unrestricted submarine warfare".

Further drafting and hammering out might allow any additional discrepancies to be resolved. Or, if the House of Cards resolution fallacy is confirmed, then this draft resolution will be scrapped.

You don't have to scrap this based on the HoC violation. Just change the wording. While the two drafts have similar intents, its the letter of the law that causes the duplication, which would make it illegal. That has a bigger chance of ruining this then the HoC issue. All told, though, this is a very well written piece. Congrats.

[Sternberg]

Draft 3 is up within the OP section. I've taken on much of the suggestions that everyone has generously provided, but I suspect there might be an irregularity or two still remaining.

[Separatist Peoples]

Draft 3 is up within the OP section. I've taken on much of the suggestions that everyone has generously provided, but I suspect there might be an irregularity or two still remaining.

This draft is much improved, ambassador. I'll take some time to mull things over on this before making further comments.

[Grays Harbor]

While we do not agree with this proposal, and will most likely oppose it, we must however give credit to the author for the increasingly rare instance of not only posting first for debate, but actually listening to the critiques without taking umbrage at every comment.

[Sternberg]

While we do not agree with this proposal, and will most likely oppose it, we must however give credit to the author for the increasingly rare instance of not only posting first for debate, but actually listening to the critiques without taking umbrage at every comment.

Oh? Would potential disagreement be a matter of policy, or is the proposed legislation at fault, ambassador?

[Grays Harbor]

While we do not agree with this proposal, and will most likely oppose it, we must however give credit to the author for the increasingly rare instance of not only posting first for debate, but actually listening to the critiques without taking umbrage at every comment.

Oh? Would potential disagreement be a matter of policy, or is the proposed legislation at fault, ambassador?

For a number of reasons.
1.) The requirement that merchant vessels must not be carrying "non-military" cargo in order to be a legitimate target, something impossible for a submarine to ascertain unless they surface and request a copy of the relevant ships manifest. All shipping of an enemy nation are legitimate targets as anything can be used for the military, raw materials and food included. Also, if an enemy nation is under blockade, then the entire purpose of that blockade is to deny them the materials required for the continuation of the war.
2.) For a submarine to "give warning" is to invite their own destruction. Unless, of course, you are also willing to ban Armed Merchant Cruisers (Q-Ships) who disguise their weaponry until the submarine surfaces, or to prohibit convoy escorts from attacking when a submarine surfaces to give warning, or prohibiting the escorts from launching their own attack without warning when they detect a submerged submarine.
3.) We would question which "International Law" you reference as prohibiting unrestricted submarine warfare. We are unaware of any, so that makes that particular statement pointless hyperbole and not a bit disingenuous.

[Chester Pearson]

While well drafted, at this time The Federation will have to OPPOSE. A large portion of our strategic arsenal is aboard submarines. This includes high yield warheads for attacking surface groups. If an aggressor nation were to place civilian ships within that surface group, our defense plans could be severely compromised.

Warmest regards,

[Sternberg]

Hmm, it seems I still have a loooong way to go.

[Chester Pearson]

Hmm, it seems I still have a loooong way to go.

Please do keep at it Ambassador. The idea is sound, it just needs work. Let this remain as a draft for a while, and take other Ambassadors comments into consideration. Eventually you will come up with a compromise that a majority can support.

Best wishes....

[Infinite Innovations Initiative]

If this gets passed would you do an anti-unrestricted drone warfare act as well. Those have some of the same problems submarines did in WW2 in regards to civilian casualties and challenging the bounds of others national sovereignty.

[Rotwood]

While well drafted, at this time The Federation will have to OPPOSE. A large portion of our strategic arsenal is aboard submarines. This includes high yield warheads for attacking surface groups. If an aggressor nation were to place civilian ships within that surface group, our defense plans could be severely compromised.

Warmest regards,

([url=http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b631/Unitedfederationofcanada/image_zps3414506d.jpg]Image)[/url]

This raises a valid point. Perhaps a clause preventing nations using civilian ships as shields.

Although, mayhaps the idea of civilian shields could be for another proposal...?

[Sternberg]

While well drafted, at this time The Federation will have to OPPOSE. A large portion of our strategic arsenal is aboard submarines. This includes high yield warheads for attacking surface groups. If an aggressor nation were to place civilian ships within that surface group, our defense plans could be severely compromised.

Warmest regards,

([url=http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b631/Unitedfederationofcanada/image_zps3414506d.jpg]Image)[/url]

This raises a valid point. Perhaps a clause preventing nations using civilian ships as shields.

Although, mayhaps the idea of civilian shields could be for another proposal...?

*clicks fingers*

No, wait! That's EXACTLY the loophole we need to close ... at least, to address part of the concerns raised.

[Sternberg]

This raises a valid point. Perhaps a clause preventing nations using civilian ships as shields.

Although, mayhaps the idea of civilian shields could be for another proposal...?

*clicks fingers*

No, wait! That's EXACTLY the loophole we need to close ... at least, to address part of the concerns raised.

Perhaps it could be closed by an annotation to Article 2a, point III, say:

"... iii. As any vessel that is clearly denoted and recognised as originating from a nation uninvolved with the conflict, on the provision that said vessel or the nation it declares for does not become an active (eg: attacking) or passive (eg: utilised by another military vessel as a 'shield') party to the conflict."

[Chester Pearson]

*clicks fingers*

No, wait! That's EXACTLY the loophole we need to close ... at least, to address part of the concerns raised.

Perhaps it could be closed by an annotation to Article 2a, point III, say:

"... iii. As any vessel that is clearly denoted and recognised as originating from a nation uninvolved with the conflict, on the provision that said vessel or the nation it declares for does not become an active (eg: attacking) or passive (eg: utilised by another military vessel as a 'shield') party to the conflict."

Its a good start....

[Hallensbane]

Well, Hallensbane will be opposed to this. It's a good first draft, Ambassador, but we are sorry to say we really don't like military restrictions. As a nation we enjoy our toys, and we enjoy being able to use our toys as we see fit. Also, we also agree there is an issue with this effectively banning submarine blockades. A food transport to the civilians of an enemy nation might seem like something you shouldn't bring down, but one has to consider that if that food transport gets through, that frees more food items to get sent to the front. You can't guarantee that the shipment of iron that's being shipped into a town is to rebuild their shattered buildings, or if they're actually going to use it to help build more armaments to use against your folks. And how can you know that this shipment of toys isn't hiding bullets for the troops?

I think this could easily turn into a bureaucratic nightmare. A submarine is only good if the enemy doesn't know it's there. If they have to ask a ship what they're carrying (and they could easily lie about that), or keep contacting home to figure out if it's alright to fire there's a real problem. Sorry, but no.

Now... if a system where to be created to allow protection of passenger ships from subs while still allowing goods to be targeted... We might be alright with that. But this draft? Sorry, not really going for it.

OOC: Just a couple of things to help you out... most are nitpicky.

IS CONCERNED that the conflicting natures of submarine warfare and the requirements of military rules of engagement may result in confusion during conflict or exploited by less-scrupulous nations who would deliberately violate national / World Assembly resolutions on military conduct during wartime and any standing rules of engagement,

Just seems a bit wordy. The only thing that really bugged me was the "IS CONCERNED" bit. The "IS" just seems very out of place. Truthfully I'd like to see that whole section whittled down to one or two lines, something like...

CONCERNED that the conflict between the nature of submarine warfare and the military rules of engagement may result in confusion, or could be exploited to circumvent resolutions on military conduct,

It still gets the point across, without the extra words. Also it drops the national part, which really isn't something the WA ought to be looking at. If the military is failing to follow the nation's own laws, a WA resolution isn't going to fix the issue.

4. RECOMMENDS, if deemed necessary by the World Assembly, that a relevant international body with appropriate World Assembly oversight formed with the authority to convene tribunals to investigate and, if found guilty, prosecute any breaches of international law that involve the use of unrestricted submarine warfare;

Did one little grammar fix there, but yeah. This just seems something... that doesn't seem quite right either way. It's very vague, and doesn't seem like it would do very much. Not to mention it creates the whole issue of trying to figure out how it would be prosecuted, and under which laws... I would either flesh it out more, or just drop it.

Just my opinion though, not trying to boss you about or anything.