[PASSED] Rules of Surrender

[Normlpeople]

"Esteemed colleagues, the newest draft is up. Rather then wrestle with the ridiculous interpretation of not affecting nonmember states, I've altered the EXTENDS clause somewhat. Also, some significant stylistic revisions that do little to alter the effects. Barring other extreme input from here or the remote offices (OOC: offsite forums), I intend to test-fly this within a week."

"I do agree its ridiculous interpretation, however, precedent is a terrible thing sometimes. I read the draft with no confusion now toward its target, all that is left is to get it to the floor!"

[Separatist Peoples]

So just ask for a ruling on the wording. Again, if it doesn't say "all nations" it shouldn't run afoul of trying to affect nonmembers.

OOC: Given the sporadic application of reasonable rulings of late, and the significant encroachment of Real Life on my time, it's not quite worth the OOC effort to me. I'd rather just cover my tushie. And I've already received some confusion on the matter.

[Feichland]

"Feichland will completely support this, we feel as if there should be more clarity when it comes to terms of surrender and the status of soldiers during surrender and/or peace talks.

[Imperializt Russia]

NOTICE: This bill does not force any nation to accept offers of surrender. Please don't fool yourself into thinking this.

If the party being capitulated to is not required to accept the surrender of the capitulating party, what's the point in codifying rules of surrender in the first place?
A party can invite the capitulating force to parley, reject their offer and immediately "end cessation of hostilities", which may include the killing or forcible capture of the parley unit, likely high-level commanders and staff, likely unarmed.

Unless I've misread your clarification, and you mean that no state shall ever be forced to surrender itself should an offer of accepting a surrender be submitted by an opposing force.
Nation A calls on Nation B to surrender. Nation A may be winning or losing the military campaign. Nation A may even have been largely defeated.
Nation B is not compelled to surrender under this resolution?
In which case I apologise, but respectfully request that you reword this clarification, as I feel it can be easily misconstrued.

[Separatist Peoples]

NOTICE: This bill does not force any nation to accept offers of surrender. Please don't fool yourself into thinking this.

If the party being capitulated to is not required to accept the surrender of the capitulating party, what's the point in codifying rules of surrender in the first place?
A party can invite the capitulating force to parley, reject their offer and immediately "end cessation of hostilities", which may include the killing or forcible capture of the parley unit, likely high-level commanders and staff, likely unarmed.

Unless I've misread your clarification, and you mean that no state shall ever be forced to surrender itself should an offer of accepting a surrender be submitted by an opposing force.
Nation A calls on Nation B to surrender. Nation A may be winning or losing the military campaign. Nation A may even have been largely defeated.
Nation B is not compelled to surrender under this resolution?
In which case I apologise, but respectfully request that you reword this clarification, as I feel it can be easily misconstrued.

"Fortunately, that isn't part of the resolution, but the following discussion. According to the draft, Nation A can offer parley to Nation B to offer a termed surrender. Nation B can demand, say, Nation A's total disarmament, loss of autonomy, and that the color purple be banned. Nation A is under no obligation to accept that. Likewise, if Nation A demanded that Nation B assist in post-conflict rebuilding as a condition of their capitulation, Nation B can say "fuck that, war's back on!"

"I'm still genuinely torn as to whether to add clause requiring members to accept unconditional surrender, but given the Assembly's love of perfidy, I'm not sure I want to add yet another burden to member states."

[Imperializt Russia]

I would be tempted to suggest that some form of post-conflict rebuilding should be required of member states. We are held to a higher standard, and I believe it would be unreasonable for a state to intentionally deprive another of vital infrastructure, then put up their hands and say "we're done, bye!", leaving them to some humanitarian crisis they are unable to pay to undo.

Given the enormous strategic value of infrastructure to reduce the capabilities of the military, the popularity of the government and increase public opposition to continuation of the conflict - and their inherent vulnerability and intentional targeting in nuclear conflict and with electronic warfare - infrastructure will be in tatters even in conventional conflict.
Though this is probably a condition that should be put forward in a different proposal. It's quite overreaching and would detract from the stated aims of this resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Though this is probably a condition that should be put forward in a different proposal. It's quite overreaching and would detract from the stated aims of this resolution.

"Exactly. The rebuilding bit was an attempt to use an example not riddled with ridiculousness."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Well then, that was informative. Quorum failed to be achieved, as expected, but the proposal was only 25 approvals short with zero campaign. At the same time, I finally received a critique from an off-site legislating group (Texas), the representative flatly refusing to support this because war is war, and it never will be pleasant. I find it confusing that citing the horrors of war is a counter argument to limiting them, but I take the flat refusal as tacit implication that the text itself isn't flawed, just my idealism.

"I also expected some more attention to be generated here by the submission, quiet though it was. No such luck. All things considered, once I have a Campaign put together, I see no reason not to try this for real."

[Araraukar]

"I also expected some more attention to be generated here by the submission, quiet though it was. No such luck. All things considered, once I have a Campaign put together, I see no reason not to try this for real."

Next time you submit, let me know, I'll poke some peeps for you.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I've scheduled this for a real submission, complete with a TG campaign, likely on Wednesday or Thursday. Having never run a successful TG campaign, nor had the fortune to serve as a Delegate while a decent one was in full swing, I may be plying a few of you who have shown support for pointers on the matter.

Bell sighs heavily, "In a perfect world, this would pass, and would be followed by a mechanism reminiscent of the ICC to help enforce it. I've several drafts floating around in the recesses of my hard drive to expand similar laws of war (including one that would make executing those deemed hors de combat and declaring no quarter illegal, which I've tried to skirt in this draft), but I can't justify even bringing them up here until a mechanism of punishing war criminals is closer to a reality. So, for now they incubate. I look forward to any final polishing my dear colleagues have to offer as the submission date closes in."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: So, I lied. I'll be looking to submit this in about two weeks. One if Real Life manages to mellow out. Maybe. I may just wait until middle school is definitively back in session before pursuing this again...

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: So, I lied. I'll be looking to submit this in about two weeks. One if Real Life manages to mellow out. Maybe. I may just wait until middle school is definitively back in session before pursuing this again...

That is probably preferable to your cause....

[Wrapper]

OOC: So, I lied. I'll be looking to submit this in about two weeks. One if Real Life manages to mellow out. Maybe. I may just wait until middle school is definitively back in session before pursuing this again...

Yeah, always suspected you were a sixth grader.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: So, I lied. I'll be looking to submit this in about two weeks. One if Real Life manages to mellow out. Maybe. I may just wait until middle school is definitively back in session before pursuing this again...

Yeah, always suspected you were a sixth grader.

OOC: You got me! Don't tell my boss, though. Labor laws are a bitch for 12 year olds with full time jobs.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Alright, time to bring this back to the table. I'm planning a submission next week, since this week will be so incredibly hectic. I appreciate all comments and concerns, as usual."

[Chester Pearson]

I hate to say this, but this may actually fall into that vile category known as Moral Decency....

[Flamels Stone]

I hate to say this, but this may actually fall into that vile category known as Moral Decency....

What about those people that dont have or respect moral decency?
Also this law should make it law that a nation must accept another nation's surrender! Why would the WA allow the madness to continue? Of course there would be no way of enforcing it but is there anyway of enforcing any WA law?(literally asking)

[Jarish Inyo]

I don't see anything requiring a nation to accept the surrender, truce or parley of another nation.

No, the WA has no actual way to enforce international law.

[Chester Pearson]

I don't see anything requiring a nation to accept the surrender, truce or parley of another nation.

No, the WA has no actual way to enforce international law.

Compliance is mandatory. It is forced upon you with a stat change.

[Jarish Inyo]

Not accepting surrender, truce or parley of another nation is in compliance with this proposal. Nothing in this proposal actually states that a nation has to accept surrenders, truce, or parley in anyway. It states parties participating in parley or accepting surrenders.

[WA Kitty Kops]

is there anyway of enforcing any WA law?(literally asking)

OOC: Game-wise, enforcement happens automatically, you can't avoid it short of dropping out of WA. In the in-character reality, it's presumed that the "gnomes" rewrite your nation's laws, but of course no-one's required to follow those laws any more than any other of your nation's laws. I mean, murder is illegal in most nations, but murders still happen.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I hate to say this, but this may actually fall into that vile category known as Moral Decency....

Really? How does this reduce personal freedoms? And even if it did fall under Moral Decency, what would be so "vile" about it?

Question for the author: is revoking freedoms under this act standard procedure in RL international law...or even legal in NS, seeing as all resolutions must apply equally to all member states?

[Separatist Peoples]

Question for the author: is revoking freedoms under this act standard procedure in RL international law...or even legal in NS, seeing as all resolutions must apply equally to all member states?

OOC: You mean revoking protections? According to, I think, the Fourth Geneva Convention, those in violation of the rules of war outlined by The Hague Convention and the other GC's are termed "unlawful combatants", and are thusly not afforded the rights of a POW upon capture, but only after a tribunal. There has been a lot of evidence of a quicker, dirtier route being taken on that front: limited, deliberate violations in reprisal. In RL, these instances look to be considered acceptable, though I'm not pouring over legal records on the matter.

In anecdotal practice of wars since the First World War, combatants have made a point of not offering those protections to forces that demonstrated a disregard for them. The Pacific Theater of the Second World War comes to mind, with US troops shooting wounded or surrendering Japanese troops summarily since the Japanese had taken to faking surrender and attacking.

One could, potentially, read "unlawful combatant" status being applied to an enemy force as equivalent to the rules of war no longer applying, and justifying like reprisal, but I'm not an expert on the matter. For this proposal, however, that the best method of avoiding abuse, I think, is the prospect of combatants losing the legal protections that protect them in response. That will likely be more palpable than requiring a tribunal at every instance.

[Benian Republic]

I don't think I like it since it would mean I can't go do what I wish to prisoners...

[Tsarist Chernigov]

Notice,I do believe that this document is good,I support it.