[FAILED TO PASS] Submarine Warfare Resolution

[Defwa]

Unfortunately we cannot support this. If we can deny our enemies in war vital supplies by submarine warfare and
by so doing preserve the lives of OUR citizens we feel that action is necessary and just.

The only thing this proposal would ban is sniping civilian ships that may not know they are transgressing.
You can plow through them with your surface vessels- but you must give uninvolved civilians fair warning to not die.

I realize your record for war crimes is lengthy and varied. That should not be a point of pride.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Alright. I cannot completely close every tactical loophole within a single piece of legislation, but what form of 'exceptions' would you have in mind? Bear in mind, Ambassador, that this legislation has to remain relevant to the subject at hand; if you find that these measures and/or implementing them would force the legislation to deviate too far away from its original purpose, I recommend taking this matter up in additional legislation further down the road.

With the greatest respect, we are perfectly capable of drafting. How would this serve?

[...]
“Unrestricted Submarine Warfare” as standing orders or practice to deliberately target all maritime traffic:
I. Without respect of nationality,
II. Within designated areas of operations and/or heading for specific destinations,
III. Regardless of purpose, and
IV. In times of war;

[...]
FORBIDS the indiscriminate use of submarine warfare to deliberately attack:
Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly identified (prior to/during operations):
I. As shipping types protected by other relevant World Assembly resolutions; and/or
II. As any vessel that is clearly denoted and clarified as originating from a nation uninvolved with the conflict, and does not in any way provide assistance to a nation involved in the conflict.

[Sternberg]

Alright. I cannot completely close every tactical loophole within a single piece of legislation, but what form of 'exceptions' would you have in mind? Bear in mind, Ambassador, that this legislation has to remain relevant to the subject at hand; if you find that these measures and/or implementing them would force the legislation to deviate too far away from its original purpose, I recommend taking this matter up in additional legislation further down the road.

With the greatest respect, we are perfectly capable of drafting. How would this serve?

[...]
“Unrestricted Submarine Warfare” as standing orders or practice to deliberately target all maritime traffic:
I. Without respect of nationality,
II. Within designated areas of operations and/or heading for specific destinations,
III. Regardless of purpose, and
IV. In times of war;

[...]
FORBIDS the indiscriminate use of submarine warfare to deliberately attack:
Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly identified (prior to/during operations):
I. As shipping types protected by other relevant World Assembly resolutions; and/or
II. As any vessel that is clearly denoted and clarified as originating from a nation uninvolved with the conflict, and does not in any way provide assistance to a nation involved in the conflict.

Hmm ... those changes actually flow a lot better then the ones that are currently included in the draft. I'll update them now.

... At this rate, I've got to keep a credits list handy.

[Percussionland]

Its very good, but I would add a clause protecting civilian craft of a Waring nation, stating that no civilian vessel of an enemy nation can be attacked during war unless there is compelling evidence that they are transporting arms, soldiers, or military supplies, or unless they are just stupid and sail into the middle of a naval battle and get caught in the crossfire.

[Defwa]

Its very good, but I would add a clause protecting civilian craft of a Waring nation, stating that no civilian vessel of an enemy nation can be attacked during war unless there is compelling evidence that they are transporting arms, soldiers, or military supplies, or unless they are just stupid and sail into the middle of a naval battle and get caught in the crossfire.

You would also ban all blockades and embargoes.

[Percussionland]

Not embargoes, and only blockades during times of PEACE in INTERNATIONAL TERRITORY.

[Araraukar]

Not embargoes, and only blockades during times of PEACE in INTERNATIONAL TERRITORY.

So if you're supporting the addition here, does that mean you've given up on the proposal trying to do just that?

[Percussionland]

No, I changed it to only include blockades in no-man's land.

[Araraukar]

No, I changed it to only include blockades in no-man's land.

International territory is "no-man's land"... unless you mean disputed land areas, as between the trenches of two warring parties?

EDIT: And in any case, this belongs in your own thread.

[Percussionland]

No, just international territory. Not being able to torpedo anyone you want would support this idea, and help keep submarines out of blockades.

[Sternberg]

I originally had a sub-clause under Article III of this resolution which, in part, pertains to some of the Ambassador for Percussionland's concerns. I have since re-inserted it into the document:

3. FORBIDS the indiscriminate use of submarine warfare to deliberately attack:
[list][*] Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly identified (prior to/during operations):

I. As not purposed to the trafficking of military assets or cargo
II. As shipping types protected by relevant World Assembly resolutions; and/or
III. Any vessel that is clearly denoted and clarified as originating from a nation uninvolved with the conflict and does not, in any way, provide assistance to any nation involved.

Apart from that, I cannot delve into the issue of blockades as that is simply not the purpose of this accord. The purpose of this legislation is to define approporiate 'conduct', as it were, in regards to the issue stated, not to completely cover every capable loophole concerning maritime warfare. In the case of the latter point, it would take far too many pieces of legislation to cover every aspect and, I reiterate, is not the purpose of this resolution.

If it is a major issue to all parties concerned, I can modify the definition of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare to account for attacks in international waters; that can help as it means that targeting and sinking civilian/commercial vessels in international waters without authorisation would fall under the declaration of Article II. (the Pong Su incident,for example, saw the need for authorities to stop the ship from reaching international waters as they could not capture or sink the ship once it reaches that area).

Adding entire paragraphs devoted to both blockades and related matters (which, if you've looked a couple of pages back, WAS debated), however, is out of the scope of this document and, therefore, completely out of the question at this time.

[Goddess Relief Office]

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

UNDERSTANDS the ambiguous nature of submarine warfare and the fact that decisions usually rely on the judgement of those in command, whether of a ship or groups of vessels, or by political leaders removed from the front-lines,

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

Reading this with fresh eyes after a lapse of a few weeks, and keeping in mind what happened to EnE's resolution at the voting stage, I'm wondering if you should add a clear and strong example of one of the problems that might arise in the third clause.

As it stands, the preamble is pretty ambiguous on that--- it only mentions "confusion" and "exploited to circumvent international law"...and the words "may" and "could be" made the case even weaker. With EnE's fate in mind, we now know that there's a significant portion of the WA that doesn't see "confusion" or "exploitation of international law" as problems that needs fixing.

I think it would really help to list one example that would stand out to convince people that it's a problem. Perhaps you could add to Clause 3: "CONCERNED that conflict....+ such as....(your example)" This may be the deliberate sinking of civilian vessels, or something else that you may have mentioned in the body of your resolution. Be aware that a good portion of voters won't read the entire resolution. They will vote base on what they read in your first 2 or 3 sentences. That's why you have to make a very compelling case early on.

ALARMED that seemingly few internationally-defined standards are expressed in World Assembly legislation that set expectations regarding this aspect of naval warfare,

It's only "Alarming" to voters if the problem is serious enough, as noted above.

1. DEFINES:

• “Military submarine” as any submersible ship:
  
  I. Expressly owned and operated by or on behalf of a nation’s armed forces,
  II. Capable of being armed with anti-ship torpedoes, guided missiles or other weapons for the purpose of attacking, disabling or sinking opposing vessels; and
  III. Utilised in the pursuit of military objectives at sea, primarily the tracking, disabling or sinking of other ships;
  
  
• “Submarine Warfare” as any form of combative naval operation prosecuted by a military submarine; and
• “Unrestricted Submarine Warfare” as standing orders or practice to deliberately target all maritime traffic:
  
  I. Without respect for nationality,
  II. Regardless as to whether the targets were sunk within designated areas of operations, in international waters and/or heading for specific destinations,
  III. Regardless of purpose, and
  IV. In times of war;

2. DESIGNATES the use of unrestricted submarine warfare as a war crime,

3. FORBIDS the indiscriminate use of submarine warfare to deliberately attack:
[*] Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly identified (prior to/during operations):

^Here is the meat of the resolution (my highlight). But it is too low down the resolution to jump out. You should mention this in the first 3 clauses.

4. MANDATES:

• World Assembly members to investigate and prosecute any military personnel found to have been complicit or actively involved in the utilisation of unrestricted submarine warfare.
• If found guilty, it is expected under relevant World Assembly regulations on warfare that these personnel are to be punished by their command hierarchy, accounting for their rank, command authority and actions during an incident.
• If any investigation cannot be successfully conducted between warring nations or their armed forces' judiciaries due to disagreements or reasonable doubt, the matter is brought to the attention of the International Criminal Court for arbitration and judgement.

Blue: This part strikes me as a little micro-managey. It's sufficient to mandate that WA members investigate and prosecute... there's really no need to spell out so clearly how they go about doing it. The more details you add in, the more loopholes there might be, and less support you'll get from NatSov-minded nations who do not like being told what to do.

Red: I believe i read somewhere that ICC may be repealed? Please speak to the ambassador from Mousebumples to find out the timing, and see if she supports this clause mentioning the International Criminal Court.

Regards,
~GRO~

[Araraukar]

I believe i read somewhere that ICC may be repealed? Please speak to the ambassador from Mousebumples to find out the timing, and see if she supports this clause mentioning the International Criminal Court.

No, don't. The Mousebumples ambassador has no intention of replacing the ICC themselves - and mentioning a committee and giving it things to do in another resolution is fine even if its original resolution was repealed.

[Sternberg]

With the imminent demise of the International Criminal Court, I have added a clause to this resolution in order to create a tribunal that can mediate and arbitrate over any military maritime cases where a war crime has been committed AND when native judiciaries are unable to render judgement among themselves.

Quote:

5. FOUNDS the International Naval Crimes Tribunal (INCT), empowers it to provide legally binding arbitration and judgement over any disputes of this resolution that national military judiciaries are unable to resolve between themselves, and provides it additional authority to mediate in any international naval matters that would be classified as "war crimes".

[Bears Armed]

You could use the [created=>abolished=> re-created] WA Nautical Commission.

viewtopic.php?p=7463244&sid=4f566b1edda21facace146a810b1fe13#p7463244

[Elke and Elba]

You could use the [created=>abolished=> re-created] WA Nautical Commission.

viewtopic.php?p=7463244&sid=4f566b1edda21facace146a810b1fe13#p7463244

Aww, bears! I wanted to use that committee for the Airspace one! ^3^

[Sternberg]

You could use the [created=>abolished=> re-created] WA Nautical Commission.

viewtopic.php?p=7463244&sid=4f566b1edda21facace146a810b1fe13#p7463244

Hmm, that was an option I was seriously considering, Ambassador. However, my initial interpretation of the founding of the W.A.N.C. (very unfortunate phrasing.) was that it had been created to oversee the resolution it had been founded to monitor, as well as primarily dealing with sea-territory disputes.

I'll give the legislation another look over, in case my initial assumption was wrong.

[Separatist Peoples]

You could use the [created=>abolished=> re-created] WA Nautical Commission.

viewtopic.php?p=7463244&sid=4f566b1edda21facace146a810b1fe13#p7463244

Hmm, that was an option I was seriously considering, Ambassador. However, my initial interpretation of the founding of the W.A.N.C. (very unfortunate phrasing.) was that it had been created to oversee the resolution it had been founded to monitor, as well as primarily dealing with sea-territory disputes.

I'll give the legislation another look over, in case my initial assumption was wrong.

"You could task any committee with anything you'd like, ambassador. You could task the International Gemological Agency to cover the duties in this draft, and the effect would be the same. Actually...I'd like to request that you task the International Gemological Agency with these tasks."

[Bears Armed]

You could use the [created=>abolished=> re-created] WA Nautical Commission.

viewtopic.php?p=7463244&sid=4f566b1edda21facace146a810b1fe13#p7463244

Hmm, that was an option I was seriously considering, Ambassador. However, my initial interpretation of the founding of the W.A.N.C. (very unfortunate phrasing.)

Blame Cobdenia, not urrs, for that: We just "inherited" it from their earlier, but repealed, resolution on the same subject.

was that it had been created to oversee the resolution it had been founded to monitor, as well as primarily dealing with sea-territory disputes.

OOC: I think that Cobdenia's original intention was for it to handle as many "boaty" matters (which were one of his main specialisations in NSUN/WA/GA legislation) as possible.

[Sternberg]

Hokay, so after some tinkering:

5. TASKS the World Assembly Nautical Commission (W.A.N.C.), in addition to any existing powers it presently holds, to:

• Establish a joint military/civilian sub-tribunal to oversee the provisions of this resolution,
• Provide legally binding arbitration and judgement over any disputes relating to this resolution that national military commands/judiciaries are unable to resolve between themselves; and
• Provides it additional authority to mediate in any international naval matters that would be legally classified by the World Assembly as "war crimes".

[Lexicor]

OOC:

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZES the authority of national and regional military forces to govern and discipline their own personnel in accordance with their own regulations,

UNDERSTANDS the ambiguous nature of submarine warfare and the fact that decisions usually rely on the judgement of commanding officers, whether of a vessel or group of vessels, or by a nations political leaders,

CONCERNED that conflict between the nature of submarine warfare and militaryrules of engagement, such as in case of deliberately sinking civilian vessels, is utilized to circumvent international maritime law,

This clause just feels off.

"Concerned that contradictions exist in rules of engagement and the nature of submarine warfare, as in the case of deliberately sinking vessels, is used to circumvent international law."

Hereby:

1. DEFINES:
“Military submarine” as any submersible ship:
I. Expressly owned and operated by or on behalf of a nation’s armed forces,
II. Capable of being armed with anti-ship torpedoes, guided missiles or other weapons for the purpose of attacking, disabling or sinking opposing vessels and;
III. Utilized in the pursuit of military objectives at sea, primarily the tracking, disabling or sinking of other ships;
“Submarine Warfare” as any form of combative naval operation prosecuted by a military submarine; and
“Unrestricted Submarine Warfare” as standing orders or practice to deliberately target all maritime traffic:
I. Without respect for nationality,
II. Regardless as to whether the targets were sunk within designated areas of operations, in international waters or heading for specific destinations,
III. Regardless of purpose, and
IV. In times of war;

2. DESIGNATES the use of unrestricted submarine warfare as a war crime,

3. FORBIDS the indiscriminate use of submarine warfare to deliberately attack:
Any civilian or commercial vessel which can be clearly identified (prior to/during operations):
I. As not purposed to the trafficking of military assets or cargo
II. As shipping types protected by relevant World Assembly resolutions; and/or
III. Any vessel that is clearly denoted and clarified as originating from a nation uninvolved with the conflict and does not, in any way, provide assistance to any nation involved.
Any military vessel that has clearly and credibly signaled its intent to surrender;
Any surviving crew members from sunken vessels, unless the submarine's crew are at significant, credible risk of falling under attack by these survivors.

4. MANDATES that:
World Assembly members are to investigate and prosecute any military personnel found to have been complicit or actively participated in unrestricted submarine warfare.
If any investigation cannot be successfully conducted between warring nations or their armed forces' judiciaries due to disagreements or reasonable doubt, the matter is brought to the attention of the W.A.N.C. for arbitration and judgement.

5. TASKS the World Assembly Nautical Commission (W.A.N.C.), in addition to any existing powers it presently holds, to:
Establish a joint military/civilian sub-tribunal to oversee the provisions of this resolution,
Provide legally binding arbitration and judgement over any disputes relating to this resolution that national military commands/judiciaries are unable to resolve between themselves and;
Provides it additional authority to mediate in any international naval matters that would be legally classified by the World Assembly as "war crimes".

Overall we support this. All the edits suggested were minor and mostly of a "reducing character count" variety.

[Sternberg]

Much obliged. Thanks.

Any further thoughts on the resolution that might be of help? I don't think I can hold putting this to quorum any longer - the only reason I'm holding back is to try and tighten up any loose screws it may hold.

You could say I'm making it water-tight.

[Wrapper]

You could say I'm making it water-tight.

[Sternberg]

You could say I'm making it water-tight.

Sorry, Ambassador, but it was too good (bad?) of a "bad pun" opportunity to pass up.

[Bears Armed]

the authority of national and regional military forces

"regional" as in NS-the-game 'regions'? Illegal for Meta-gaming.
"regional" in some other sense, instead? Better explain it in the proposal, so that legality can't be challenged on that basis.