[PASSED] Rules of Surrender

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Added a clause about those combatants found hors de combat. Its as close to a ban on "No Quarter" orders as I think I can effectively pass without seriously impeding a unit's ability to avoid strategically overburdening itself. Comments are welcome."

"We like the clause, but it's obviously not us you need be worried about. I wonder whether the fact that this proposal will be unpopular with the orcs actually gives you a little latitude: there's no point trying to be reasonable as they will vote against anything trying to impose laws of war, so you can actually afford to be more expansive.

"While I still think declaring an order of no quarter to be a manifestly illegal order would be of benefit, your proposal is now so comprehensive that I also can't see that not doing so does any real harm."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

OOC: In I. 1, "terms a negotiated surrender" should be "terms of a negotiated surrender".

[Separatist Peoples]

Nothing in this requires you accept the surrender of a party

Perhaps a CLARIFIES clause at the end stating just that? You do know that many ambassadors who do not take part in these debates do not have our, hmmm, level of reading comprehension, let's say, and just skim through these proposals prior to casting their votes. Yes?

"I've been genuinely considering that. Part of me just doesn't want to believe that nations could appoint such inane ambassadors, I suppose, despite seeing it a thousand times...all this writing to improve the world has turned me into an idealist! I'll let this steep in the public eye before making the final decision, though I expect I'll have to."

[Wrapper]

Part of me just doesn't want to believe that nations could appoint such inane ambassadors, I suppose

Ahume raises an eyebrow. Ari turns and points to his assistant.

Don't you say a fucking word.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Added a clause about those combatants found hors de combat. Its as close to a ban on "No Quarter" orders as I think I can effectively pass without seriously impeding a unit's ability to avoid strategically overburdening itself. Comments are welcome."

"We like the clause, but it's obviously not us you need be worried about. I wonder whether the fact that this proposal will be unpopular with the orcs actually gives you a little latitude: there's no point trying to be reasonable as they will vote against anything trying to impose laws of war, so you can actually afford to be more expansive.

"While I still think declaring an order of no quarter to be a manifestly illegal order would be of benefit, your proposal is now so comprehensive that I also can't see that not doing so does any real harm."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

OOC: In I. 1, "terms a negotiated surrender" should be "terms of a negotiated surrender".

OOC sorry for the double post, editing on a iPhone gets rough...my spell checker on the master document keeps making that correction. I'll jump on it.

IC: "That was my intention, after deep consideration. It's already virtually impossible to give such an order and not be in violation. I'm also dangerously close to the character limit...less then 200 characters left to play with. That the DSR delegation finds my draft so comprehensive is high praise from my perspective, given the eye for detail the Republic has become known for."

Part of me just doesn't want to believe that nations could appoint such inane ambassadors, I suppose

Ahume raises an eyebrow. Ari turns and points to his assistant.

Don't you say a fucking word.

"What? If this is about the incident with the goat, I thought we were all past that!"

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm requesting one last review from those who commented before the latest addition. I feel like I've struck all the balances and eliminated all the loopholes I can, but, relatively speaking, the hors de combat bits are painfully fresh additions.

That said, I'm very excited to move this to submission now that summer break is over, and plan on doing so soon.

[Ainocra]

I think you're there. All in all I could find nothing I would see changed.

Let me know when you plan to submit I'll be sure to approve it.

[The Sheika]

I read over the proposal and it looks like it sufficiently addresses the issue. I hope to see that it makes quorum and is put before the General Assembly.

[Separatist Peoples]

I read over the proposal and it looks like it sufficiently addresses the issue. I hope to see that it makes quorum and is put before the General Assembly.

I think you're there. All in all I could find nothing I would see changed.

Let me know when you plan to submit I'll be sure to approve it.

"Many thanks to both of you, honored Delegates and ambassadors!" Bell says with a wide grin, "Your support means more to me than you know!"

Edit:"I suppose at this point it is clear that I submitted this. I meant to send all those who approved it during the test run a special Telegram, but someone," Bell glared angrily at Chuckie, who was busy daintily nibbling on Important Documents, "misplaced or digested that document...in any case, if you have approved this before, or approve this now, you will have my undying gratitude, my fellow ambassadors."

[Chester Pearson]

Now lets hope it passes....

[The Eternal Kawaii]

I read over the proposal and it looks like it sufficiently addresses the issue. I hope to see that it makes quorum and is put before the General Assembly.

We've looked over the proposal and are satisfied with what we see. Approved.

[Pommern Samoa]

"We can't not support a resolution that seeks to regulate perfidious and dishonourable conduct." The Pommern delegation rises in a standing ovation.

[Louisistan]

"We can't not support a resolution that seeks to regulate perfidious and dishonourable conduct." The Pommern delegation rises in a standing ovation.

Deputy Ambassador Schulz looks up from his papers, surprised. "So, you like dishonourable conduct?"

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We can't not support a resolution that seeks to regulate perfidious and dishonourable conduct." The Pommern delegation rises in a standing ovation.

Deputy Ambassador Schulz looks up from his papers, surprised. "So, you like dishonourable conduct?"

"Double negative, Deputy Ambassador."

~ Daisy Chimusic
Legislative Intern and Professional Pedant

[Flamels Stone]

' Damn you I was going to correct him!

Deputy Ambassador Schulz looks up from his papers, surprised. "So, you like dishonourable conduct?"

"Double negative, Deputy Ambassador."

~ Daisy Chimusic
Legislative Intern and Professional Pedant

''Damn! I was going to correct him! Anyway we support this resolution''

[Separatist Peoples]

"This has made quorum, and voting ought to open in several hours, seeing as the queue is empty." Bell notes quietly.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"This has made quorum, and voting ought to open in several hours, seeing as the queue is empty." Bell notes quietly.

Excellent. I didn't have either the physical presence or the wellspring of ideas necessary to comment on this during drafting, but it appears well in hand. Obvious support. Break a leg!

[North Arkana]

The fact that this proposal makes using the pretense of surrendering to lure the enemy into a less advantageous position relative to my own a war crime, undermines the effectiveness of certain military special operations units of my nation, especially when operating against a certain hostile neighbor, and I'm sure it would do the same to other nation as well. Deception helps to end wars and limit casualties, removing the option of deception in certain situations would serve to prolong wars and increase casualties. Also, I've only skimmed the previous posts so I want to make sure of something. If this passes, would it apply to wars against non-WA nations?

[The Sheika]

The fact that this proposal makes using the pretense of surrendering to lure the enemy into a less advantageous position relative to my own a war crime, undermines the effectiveness of certain military special operations units of my nation, especially when operating against a certain hostile neighbor, and I'm sure it would do the same to other nation as well. Deception helps to end wars and limit casualties, removing the option of deception in certain situations would serve to prolong wars and increase casualties. Also, I've only skimmed the previous posts so I want to make sure of something. If this passes, would it apply to wars against non-WA nations?

While using deception is part of warfare, feigning surrender can be extremely dangerous to the combatants involved. Let's say for example that a squad element is surrounded, their ammunition levels are in the red, water and sustenance are completely gone, and there are two members injured. The senior member of the squad (whether it is a non-commissioned officer or an enlisted grade personnel) has to decide the best option. Joe Snuffy (the person in charge) decides to feign surrendering and attack the opposition when their guard is down.

Sure, the squad members would be able to pick off three or four soldiers of the opposition, but what then? The opposition quickly learns it is all a ruse then engages the squad with deadly force. Even if Joe Snuffy opted to actually surrender after ambushing the opposition, how likely do you think it will be that the opposition will allow it? On that same token, place your forces in the boots of the opposition. Let's say that one of your units (whether it be a squad, platoon, company, battalion, etc.) encounters a unit that has declared surrender. The opposing unit instead decides to use the same tactic as mentioned before, with several of your soldiers becoming casualties.

In all it is a protective measure for not only the opposition, but for your own troops as well. If this does pass, non-WA nations are not held to the same standard as members nations.

[Chostea]

The People's Republic of Chostea wishes to point out that waving a white flag does not traditionally always signify surrender, rather that a side wishes to enter negotiations, and thus will be voting against this resolution due to a lack of understanding of the terms of surrender. If a rule is not accurate it should not be enforced.

Ian Xiaoyi, Chostean Ministry of International Affairs

[Pennswald]

The People's Republic of Chostea wishes to point out that waving a white flag does not traditionally always signify surrender, rather that a side wishes to enter negotiations, and thus will be voting against this resolution due to a lack of understanding of the terms of surrender. If a rule is not accurate it should not be enforced.

Ian Xiaoyi, Chostean Ministry of International Affairs

Perhaps the Minister has skimmed the resolution too quickly? The resolution does not define "waving a white flag" as signifying surrender but "for the cessation of hostilities and intention to parley" -- in other words, a request to enter negotiations.

If this is your only objection, perhaps you would reconsider your position?

[Chostea]

The People's Republic of Chostea wishes to point out that waving a white flag does not traditionally always signify surrender, rather that a side wishes to enter negotiations, and thus will be voting against this resolution due to a lack of understanding of the terms of surrender. If a rule is not accurate it should not be enforced.

Ian Xiaoyi, Chostean Ministry of International Affairs

Perhaps the Minister has skimmed the resolution too quickly? The resolution does not define "waving a white flag" as signifying surrender but "for the cessation of hostilities and intention to parley" -- in other words, a request to enter negotiations.

If this is your only objection, perhaps you would reconsider your position?

"This is not the only objection that the People's Republic of Chostea wishes to point out, it was merely something to begin with"

There is a long pause.

"As another nation has pointed out, this resolution could be abused, by those who don't 'play by the rules', so to speak. An ambush or something similar could be created, or the opposing forces may change their minds, and allowing such things to be easier to do would be a mistake. Especially if they change their minds again and surrender after breaking the surrender."

Minister Ian opens a folder, one made of leather, with the resolution's documents inside and pulls out one of the sheets of paper.

"The resolution states, in Article I.1, that if they -- that is, the surrendering forces -- wish to surrender, all they need to do is display a symbol of truce. Dropping their weapons right after firing another round of shots, when already believed to have been surrendering. Now they can surrender again, and Chostean lives are pointlessly lost."

"This is completely unacceptable to The People's Republic of Chostea, as it contributes to more losses in war, and neither the administration nor the people will stand for this."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"As another nation has pointed out, this resolution could be abused, by those who don't 'play by the rules', so to speak. An ambush or something similar could be created, or the opposing forces may change their minds, and allowing such things to be easier to do would be a mistake. Especially if they change their minds again and surrender after breaking the surrender."

"The resolution contains a recognition of this:

Those parties participating in a parley, under the protection of a symbol of truce, or in the process of complying with the terms of a negotiated surrender have the duty to:
...
2. Refrain from perfidious activity while under the protections of a symbol of truce, including but not limited to abusing the protections of a symbol of truce, feigning surrender to take advantage of the enemy, or using a symbol of truce or parley to screen force deployment, munitions resupply, or reconnaissance operations;
...
DECLARES that those belligerents in violation of the duties herein shall have their protections as outlined in Article I.1 revoked as the situation requires;

"In other words, if such acts of perfidy as you describe do occur, then protected status can be revoked. Furthermore, as repeatedly and furiously noted, the resolution would not oblige you to accept a second 'surrender'.

"There are more than adequate protections against perfidy within the resolution text."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

[Velias]

The regulamentation proposed on the "rules of surrender" is a good start to recognize war prisoners rights, but anyway it's not sufficient. In fact, the proposal covers only surrenders of a nation ,while it doesn't speak for civil war prisoners or unofficial military groups. This is why The senate and people of Velias reject it, waiting for a clear and complete law for surrender rights.

[Chostea]

"As another nation has pointed out, this resolution could be abused, by those who don't 'play by the rules', so to speak. An ambush or something similar could be created, or the opposing forces may change their minds, and allowing such things to be easier to do would be a mistake. Especially if they change their minds again and surrender after breaking the surrender."

"The resolution contains a recognition of this:

Those parties participating in a parley, under the protection of a symbol of truce, or in the process of complying with the terms of a negotiated surrender have the duty to:
...
2. Refrain from perfidious activity while under the protections of a symbol of truce, including but not limited to abusing the protections of a symbol of truce, feigning surrender to take advantage of the enemy, or using a symbol of truce or parley to screen force deployment, munitions resupply, or reconnaissance operations;
...
DECLARES that those belligerents in violation of the duties herein shall have their protections as outlined in Article I.1 revoked as the situation requires;

"In other words, if such acts of perfidy as you describe do occur, then protected status can be revoked. Furthermore, as repeatedly and furiously noted, the resolution would not oblige you to accept a second 'surrender'.

"There are more than adequate protections against perfidy within the resolution text."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

"Another objection that the Chostean government wishes to bring to attention is that this will greatly slow down advances. It will be like sending our military through goo. Prisoners of war cannot simply be abandoned, they will certainly go to reobtain weapons from whatever their nearest hidden supply cache is, and then there will be nothing stopping them from attacking our advancing army from behind. Leaving people to stay watch is also a poor decision because when outnumbered, a swarm of prisoners can still escape, either by killing him or by running away, and leaving behind yet more personnel will ensure that the advance will lose its effectiveness. Any form of condemnation that this assembly may bring up after said prisoners of war return to the war does not matter because the attack would have failed. The simple matter of the fact is that this resolution will not help anybody but those who are losing a war."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Another objection that the Chostean government wishes to bring to attention is that this will greatly slow down advances. It will be like sending our military through goo. Prisoners of war cannot simply be abandoned, they will certainly go to reobtain weapons from whatever their nearest hidden supply cache is, and then there will be nothing stopping them from attacking our advancing army from behind. Leaving people to stay watch is also a poor decision because when outnumbered, a swarm of prisoners can still escape, either by killing him or by running away, and leaving behind yet more personnel will ensure that the advance will lose its effectiveness.

"A graduate of the Ambassador Nameless school of debating, I see, ignoring all rebuttals and continuing on regardless. It's not very compelling.

"You still don't seem to have grasped that the resolution does not require you to accept surrenders. If it would be as injurious as you claim, then why would anyone voluntarily choose to do so?

"Furthermore, the WA has required certain treatment of prisoners of war for over six years. This proposal is not introducing any new problem."

Any form of condemnation that this assembly may bring up after

"The World Assembly does not have a mechanism for condemnations, so that's irrelevant."

~ Daisy Chinmusic