[PASSED] Rules of Surrender

[Jarish Inyo]

This proposal does not require any nation to accept surrender or parley. It only provides the code of conduct if a nation does accept a surrender. Having a code of conduct is good for all nations.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

"The POW Accord makes provisions for civilian captures, which is why I didn't attempt to do so. If that is insufficient, a separate resolution can be made. I hope you'll reconsider."

[The United Peoples of Phyrexxus]

Upon reading this new proposal, I have noticed several points that I find to be very restrictive. One of these is that, upon a surrender, I am unable to detain the person the surrendered. This is undesirable, as I find that letting them go will give my opponent no reason to free my detained soldiers. If that were to be changed, I would gladly support this new resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Upon reading this new proposal, I have noticed several points that I find to be very restrictive. One of these is that, upon a surrender, I am unable to detain the person the surrendered. This is undesirable, as I find that letting them go will give my opponent no reason to free my detained soldiers. If that were to be changed, I would gladly support this new resolution.

"You've misread that. Upon the negotiation of surrender, you may not detain them. After they are surrendered and your troops have accepted it, they become POWs, which, according to WA law, you may detain. Please, do reconsider your position."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: apologies for the double-post, in back to the phone.

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."

"All of those actions are covered by Article II.2, wherein abuse of the protections extended grants the opposing force the ability to suspend the protections of surrender. If enemy troops do as you say, your troops may simply shoot them. Had you thoroughly read the law, you would have known this."

[Chostea]

"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

There is a pause.

"I shall have to discuss this further with my government. The People's Republic of Chostea withdraws its vote for the time being."

[Valsyvir]

No stipulation is made within this resolution for the handling of Unlawful Combatants. By agreeing to this resolution we would be forced to treat Unlawful Combatants as PoWs upon accepting their surrender. Unacceptable. The esteemed representative for the Confederation of Valsyvir votes AGAINST.

[Separatist Peoples]

No stipulation is made within this resolution for the handling of Unlawful Combatants. By agreeing to this resolution we would be forced to treat Unlawful Combatants as PoWs upon accepting their surrender. Unacceptable. The esteemed representative for the Confederation of Valsyvir votes AGAINST.

"What exactly do you mean by Unlawful Combatant? There isn't any law making a distinction between a normal combatant and an unlawful one, so the distinction is meaningless."

[The Dark Star Republic]

No stipulation is made within this resolution for the handling of Unlawful Combatants. By agreeing to this resolution we would be forced to treat Unlawful Combatants as PoWs upon accepting their surrender. Unacceptable. The esteemed representative for the Confederation of Valsyvir votes AGAINST.

"What exactly do you mean by Unlawful Combatant? There isn't any law making a distinction between a normal combatant and an unlawful one, so the distinction is meaningless."

"Furthermore, unlawful combatants fall into a loophole in The Prisoners of War Accord, in that they do not fit the definition of "Prisoners of War", "civilian internees", or "military internees".

"Hence reprisals against them would - we would argue - be perfectly legal."

~ Daisy Chinmusic

[Panait]

...1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and do not constitute an outrage of personal dignity, and;...

"It is of our concern that an apparent lack of definition of an 'outrage of personal dignity' would lead to ambiguity; we may have missed it somewhere, though. We also believe that 'legal' is defined as in accordance with passed WA resolutions, but would national laws between the combatants factor into this?"

"Beyond mind-boggling semantics, though, this resolution has our nation's full support."

[Separatist Peoples]

...1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and do not constitute an outrage of personal dignity, and;...

"It is of our concern that an apparent lack of definition of an 'outrage of personal dignity' would lead to ambiguity; we may have missed it somewhere, though. We also believe that 'legal' is defined as in accordance with passed WA resolutions, but would national laws between the combatants factor into this?"

"Beyond mind-boggling semantics, though, this resolution has our nation's full support."

"The concept of a personal outrage of dignity seemed pretty straightforwards, but it was written, originally, with the ICC in existence, where incidents arising from insults to dignity could be properly hashed out. I left it in so that, when some mechanism for judging these incidents comes about, individuals who refuse to comply with terms of surrender and are killed because, say, they wouldn't strip naked, and the appropriate party is punished.

"It isn't ideal, but I should hope that most nations understand enough to be effectively in compliance."

[Panait]

"The concept of a personal outrage of dignity seemed pretty straightforwards, but it was written, originally, with the ICC in existence, where incidents arising from insults to dignity could be properly hashed out. I left it in so that, when some mechanism for judging these incidents comes about, individuals who refuse to comply with terms of surrender and are killed because, say, they wouldn't strip naked, and the appropriate party is punished.

"It isn't ideal, but I should hope that most nations understand enough to be effectively in compliance."

"We see the guarantee now. We were concerned due to the fact that nations, and commonly lawyers alike are prone to 'misinterpretations' for their benefits or purposes; we look forward to such a mechanism or authority. Hopefully this resolution is passed, for the sake of minimizing undeserved and unnecessary casualties in and during capitulations."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans is proud to support this fine resolution on the rules of surrender. We find these provisions reasonable, in accord with common sense and natural law. We would be absolutely shocked to see a resolution such as this pass the Festering Snakepit, but I suppose one deserves the right to be pleasantly surprised on occasion.

[Valsyvir]

"What exactly do you mean by Unlawful Combatant? There isn't any law making a distinction between a normal combatant and an unlawful one, so the distinction is meaningless."

"Furthermore, unlawful combatants fall into a loophole in The Prisoners of War Accord, in that they do not fit the definition of "Prisoners of War", "civilian internees", or "military internees".
"Hence reprisals against them would - we would argue - be perfectly legal."
~ Daisy Chinmusic

The esteemed Foreign Minister of the Confederation of Valsyvir disputes this stance.

The Prisoner of War Accord DEFINES a PoW as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform OR where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation. It further MANDATES that PoWs and civilian and military internees receive certain privileges. Wording infers that the three categories are separate and distinct.

The Foreign Minister of the Confederation of Valsyvir feels that Unlawful Combatants (Terrorists, Guerillas) are obviously an opposing armed force and would therefore benefit from being treated as PoWs in accord with both resolutions if captured. If this resolution passes, our new policy will be to reject surrender of all suspected Unlawful Combatants so as not to extend privileges to these despicable savages. Our vote remains AGAINST.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The esteemed Foreign Minister of the Confederation of Valsyvir disputes this stance.

The Prisoner of War Accord DEFINES a PoW as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform OR where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation. It further MANDATES that PoWs and civilian and military internees receive certain privileges. Wording infers that the three categories are separate and distinct.

The Foreign Minister of the Confederation of Valsyvir feels that Unlawful Combatants (Terrorists, Guerillas) are obviously an opposing armed force and would therefore benefit from being treated as PoWs in accord with both resolutions if captured. If this resolution passes, our new policy will be to reject surrender of all suspected Unlawful Combatants so as not to extend privileges to these despicable savages. Our vote remains AGAINST.

"Part of the problem is we're talking about something ("unlawful combatants") that isn't defined in international law. So both you and I can pretty much define that term to mean whatever we like in making our point. If the WA had better laws on war, this would all be much clearer, but sadly, that is impossible with the roadblock of Rights & Duties in the way.

"We consider 'armed forces' to be inherently limited to state actors, and therefore the WA definition of 'terrorist' does not apply (as it is limited to non-state actors). We would be satisfied to defend that interpretation to legal challenge. But 'guerillas' would, probably, receive protection from us: we should not conflate an unlawful combatant with an irregular combatant.

"Again, though, as these terms have meaning in international law, it's academic."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

[Valsyvir]

"Part of the problem is we're talking about something ("unlawful combatants") that isn't defined in international law. So both you and I can pretty much define that term to mean whatever we like in making our point. If the WA had better laws on war, this would all be much clearer, but sadly, that is impossible with the roadblock of Rights & Duties in the way.

"We consider 'armed forces' to be inherently limited to state actors, and therefore the WA definition of 'terrorist' does not apply (as it is limited to non-state actors). We would be satisfied to defend that interpretation to legal challenge. But 'guerillas' would, probably, receive protection from us: we should not conflate an unlawful combatant with an irregular combatant.

"Again, though, as these terms have meaning in international law, it's academic."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

Your arguments do have weight. As you have so succinctly pointed out, there is no “Law of War” promulgated by this body that defines various grades or types of combatants. What we here in the Confederacy of Valsyvir consider an “Unlawful Combatant” is not recognized as such by this body. As a consequence, in the future we will refrain from accepting the surrender of what, we consider, “Unlawful Combatants”.

Furthermore we will err on the side of caution in an effort to prevent an inadvertent non-compliance with both the Prisoner of War Accord and, should it pass, the resolution currently at vote, the Rules of Surrender. To prevent the inexcusable extension of privileges to what WE consider “Unlawful Combatants”, the Armed Forces of the Confederation of Valsyvir will no longer accept ANY surrender, should we ever be engaged in combat, as the current state of definition is so ambiguous. As we will not accept surrenders, we cannot be party to the Rules of Surrender, in assent or denial, and so we change our AGAINST vote to abstention.

We fully recognize that this will expose our personnel, should they attempt surrender, to similar treatment, and so we implore this body to pass a “Law of War” or amend this proposed resolution to include a specific exclusion to “Unlawful Combatants”.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...To prevent the inexcusable extension of privileges to what WE consider “Unlawful Combatants”, the Armed Forces of the Confederation of Valsyvir will no longer accept ANY surrender, should we ever be engaged in combat, as the current state of definition is so ambiguous. As we will not accept surrenders, we cannot be party to the Rules of Surrender, in assent or denial, and so we change our AGAINST vote to abstention.

We fully recognize that this will expose our personnel, should they attempt surrender, to similar treatment, and so we implore this body to pass a “Law of War” or amend this proposed resolution to include a specific exclusion to “Unlawful Combatants”.

As I'm sure you're aware, ambassador, amending the instant resolution is quite impossible. However, I have to question your classification scheme.

What is it, precisely, that makes a combatant an "unlawful" combatant? Should they target civilians, they then fall under the definition of "terrorist" published in GAR #25, thus requiring WA member forces to arrest them (obviously with deadly force if they resist), confiscate their assets and equipment, and prosecute them. If rather they use perfidious tactics against WA member forces, they then lose any protections against same (to the extent that they exist by treaty or future WA resolution).

I'm unaware of any other characteristic act or behavior that sets aside some combatants as "lawful" and others as "unlawful," barring completely arbitrary criteria. Therefore, I simply don't see how your objections carry any force, and I'd urge your government to do the right thing, if not for human rights that set WA members apart from terrorists and other war criminals in the first place, then for the benefit of your own armed forces.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Should they target civilians, they then fall under the definition of "terrorist" published in GAR #25, thus requiring WA member forces to arrest them (obviously with deadly force if they resist), confiscate their assets and equipment, and prosecute them.

"That is at least extremely questionable (our office maintains that it is in fact complete bullshit, but the Secretariat sees it differently). The visible text of WA Resolution #25 applies only to 'non-state actors': state actors (such as members of armed forces) who target civilians are not only not terrorists, but not breaking any WA laws given that WA Resolution #293 legalised the deliberate targeting and even indiscriminate murder of civilians.

"Of course, there is an active ruling that the invisible text of WA Resolution #25 prohibits state terrorist actions, but...who knows.

I'm unaware of any other characteristic act or behavior that sets aside some combatants as "lawful" and others as "unlawful," barring completely arbitrary criteria. Therefore, I simply don't see how your objections carry any force, and I'd urge your government to do the right thing, if not for human rights that set WA members apart from terrorists and other war criminals in the first place, then for the benefit of your own armed forces.

"While we don't entirely agree with the interpretation or response of the honourable representative from Valsyvir, we also think you're being unnecessarily dismissive of the idea. There isn't such a distinction in current international law, but it's not exactly unthinkable that one could be carved out: we just need to pass more laws of war first to be able to distinguish between lawful and unlawful combatants. It's the year 2014 and the WA still considers the murder of civilians to be legally permissible."

Daisy pulls a frowny face.

~ Ms. Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Should they target civilians, they then fall under the definition of "terrorist" published in GAR #25, thus requiring WA member forces to arrest them (obviously with deadly force if they resist), confiscate their assets and equipment, and prosecute them.

"That is at least extremely questionable (our office maintains that it is in fact complete bullshit, but the Secretariat sees it differently). The visible text of WA Resolution #25 applies only to 'non-state actors': state actors (such as members of armed forces) who target civilians are not only not terrorists, but not breaking any WA laws given that WA Resolution #293 legalised the deliberate targeting and even indiscriminate murder of civilians.

In which case, they're simply ordinary military forces, no? If #25 counts against state actors, any military forces that engage in "terrorism" are subject to it; if not, there's nothing to suggest that they are not deserving of the protections outlined herein. That the WA has seen fit to pass that idiotic and barbarous repeal is not a weakness of this resolution.

I'm unaware of any other characteristic act or behavior that sets aside some combatants as "lawful" and others as "unlawful," barring completely arbitrary criteria. Therefore, I simply don't see how your objections carry any force, and I'd urge your government to do the right thing, if not for human rights that set WA members apart from terrorists and other war criminals in the first place, then for the benefit of your own armed forces.

"While we don't entirely agree with the interpretation or response of the honourable representative from Valsyvir, we also think you're being unnecessarily dismissive of the idea. There isn't such a distinction in current international law, but it's not exactly unthinkable that one could be carved out: we just need to pass more laws of war first to be able to distinguish between lawful and unlawful combatants. It's the year 2014 and the WA still considers the murder of civilians to be legally permissible."

Obviously we'll support any reinstatement of basic fucking rules of civilization. But until then, the lack of them shouldn't count against this resolution.

[The Dark Star Republic]

In which case, they're simply ordinary military forces, no? If #25 counts against state actors, any military forces that engage in "terrorism" are subject to it; if not, there's nothing to suggest that they are not deserving of the protections outlined herein.

"But I think the argument is that what makes them 'not deserving' is their basic lack of regard for the laws of war.

"Please don't mistake my argument as opposing this resolution - our delegation has been strongly supportive from the outset. We're just clarifying our position that the WA's laws of war are still very raw, especially since WA Resolution #293 legalised most war crimes."

~ Daisy Chinmusic

[Warpspace]

Noventus Nov- Voice of the Four

+++++++++++++++
The representative Champions of the Four Gods of Chaos find this new resolution both deplorable and incredibly annoying for executing wars. While the current presiding Champion of Khorne finds the act semi-agreeable, the three other Champions agree that it complicates matters of combat. It's far easier to arrange a parlay and murder everyone at the congregation with a well placed explosive (typically strapped to a 'volunteer'), peeling back the barrier between realities and unleashing hordes of hungry daemons to flay the enemy alive, or just shooting them.

Irregardless of how you like to dispatch the enemy targets, this still complicates matters greatly. It also offends some of the Gods, as Tzeentch finds assassination under the act of parlay to be hilarious. And I don't laud his word just because I abhor the idea of becoming a Chaos Spaa spaa spaaa paaa WNNNNNNNNNNNNNFSHHHHGURRRL
+++++++++++++++

Decimentum- Voice of the Four

+++++++++++++++

....A-a-as my predecessor was saying, we.... we find this to be terribly. Terrible. Terribly. Terribly inconvenient. Yes. Quite inconvenient. It'll draw out some of the border wars we often partake in a tad more difficult, as we can no longer exterminate the pests that refuse to except our gloriously expanding borders.

P-p-praise Chaos!
+++++++++++++++

[Xianlong]

Upon reading this text, the Council of Ministers have one question: does this cover irregular forces also? Or do the rules of surrender only apply to uniformed and clearly defined enemies?

[Normlpeople]

"I shall place a vote FOR. I shall offer early congratulations on your first successful proposal." Clover motions as an aide delivers an unmarked paper bag to Ambassador Bell's desk. "Draco Mountains finest whisky. Enjoy it in celebration!"

[Separatist Peoples]

Upon reading this text, the Council of Ministers have one question: does this cover irregular forces also? Or do the rules of surrender only apply to uniformed and clearly defined enemies?

"I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to lawful irregular forces that don't meet the definition of non-state actor terrorists, so yes. It would."

"I shall place a vote FOR. I shall offer early congratulations on your first successful proposal." Clover motions as an aide delivers an unmarked paper bag to Ambassador Bell's desk. "Draco Mountains finest whisky. Enjoy it in celebration!"

"Ambassador, your support and your whiskey are both much appreciated! I only hope you haven't spoken too soon."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In which case, they're simply ordinary military forces, no? If #25 counts against state actors, any military forces that engage in "terrorism" are subject to it; if not, there's nothing to suggest that they are not deserving of the protections outlined herein.

"But I think the argument is that what makes them 'not deserving' is their basic lack of regard for the laws of war.

"Please don't mistake my argument as opposing this resolution - our delegation has been strongly supportive from the outset. We're just clarifying our position that the WA's laws of war are still very raw, especially since WA Resolution #293 legalised most war crimes."

I noted your delegation's support from the get-go, Ms. Chinmusic; fear not. The honorable ambassador from Valsyvir raised the issue; if I've misdirected any passion in argument towards Dark Star representatives I apologize. All I wished to point out is that treating so-called "unlawful combatants" as they are alleged to treat their targets seems inconsistent with the implied moral superiority putatively held by WA members' forces.

Whatever our stances on that, it seems we all see an opening for further WA action on the general conduct of warfare.

Apologies to Mr. Bell if this was off topic, though I think it was worth exploring.