[Draft] Ban on Wars

[Dark Fire]

Noticing that wars result in lots of deaths, social problems, crimes, and the destruction of buildings and land
Declaring that the benefits for the war industry are not a sufficient reason for allowing unnecessary wars
Wishing to protect the inhabitants of the affected states
Acknowledging that member nations still have to defend themselves from nonmember states
the World Assembly

Forbids all member states to begin wars against other member states.
Forbids all member states to encourage states to begin wars against member states.

Early draft.
Category:Global Disarmament
Strength:Strong

[Separatist Peoples]

"I believe this Duplicates GAR#2."

[Tsarist Chernigov]

Not going to happen.

[The Gulf Empire]

Here is a better proposal:

World Assembly,

NOTING that war is a great evil that results in the perpetration of war crimes, human rights abuses, and murder of innocent civilians

AWARE that war also can disrupt economies, destroy infrastructure, and lay to waste whole regions

WHILE respecting the right of every World Assembly nation to defend themselves against aggressors

DEFINES Aggressor as any nation, political entity, or organization that has launched an unprovoked attack against another nation

Defines Provocation as any attempt by another nation to goal another nation, political entity, or organization into war

MANDATES that all World Assembly Nations are prohibited from launching an attack against any nation or group unless that nation or group has either attacked them first or unless the World Assembly Nation(s) have verifiable evidence that the nation or organization is intending to launch an attack against them

REQUIRES all diplomatic efforts must be made before a World Assembly nation can declare war and all trade embargoes and sanctions that are possible must be inflicted before a World Assembly nation can declare war

PROHIBITS any nuclear strike by any World Assembly nation on any other nation unless that nation has already fired at least one nuclear weapon at them but an exception may be made for any World Assembly nation who does not have nuclear weapons defense systems and in their case, they may launch preemptive strikes but no strike shall ever target a civilian area

[Separatist Peoples]

"Still Duplicates GAR#2, and would be illegal, ambassador. Nations are already allotted the right to individual and collective self defense."

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't see how any proposal on war can proceed with Rights & Duties in place. This applies to both proposals posted in this thread. The WA has already defined war, as:

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

[Dark Fire]

Um... where is the problem, exactly? Where does it violate GAR#2?

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Um... where is the problem, exactly? Where does it violate GAR#2?

As the Dark Star Republic showed in his post, Articles 4 and 5.

May I suggest that you read the stickies, rules etc. before posting drafts, otherwise the vipers that reside in this snakepit are going to be very mean to you.

[Tsarist Chernigov]

Here is a better proposal:

World Assembly,

NOTING that war is a great evil that results in the perpetration of war crimes, human rights abuses, and murder of innocent civilians

AWARE that war also can disrupt economies, destroy infrastructure, and lay to waste whole regions

WHILE respecting the right of every World Assembly nation to defend themselves against aggressors

DEFINES Aggressor as any nation, political entity, or organization that has launched an unprovoked attack against another nation

Defines Provocation as any attempt by another nation to goal another nation, political entity, or organization into war

MANDATES that all World Assembly Nations are prohibited from launching an attack against any nation or group unless that nation or group has either attacked them first or unless the World Assembly Nation(s) have verifiable evidence that the nation or organization is intending to launch an attack against them

REQUIRES all diplomatic efforts must be made before a World Assembly nation can declare war and all trade embargoes and sanctions that are possible must be inflicted before a World Assembly nation can declare war

PROHIBITS any nuclear strike by any World Assembly nation on any other nation unless that nation has already fired at least one nuclear weapon at them but an exception may be made for any World Assembly nation who does not have nuclear weapons defense systems and in their case, they may launch preemptive strikes but no strike shall ever target a civilian area

May I add one thing,If a Nation provokes another nation with nuclear weapons or other WMDs should be allowed to fire nuclear missiles.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I also believe there are rules against promoting and discussing a different proposal within another's thread.

[Dark Fire]

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Great. Now where exactly does my proposal forbid that?

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Great. The act can be still forbidden, right? Just if something is consented into, it does not make that legal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Great. Now where exactly does my proposal forbid that?

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Great. The act can be still forbidden, right? Just if something is consented into, it does not make that legal.

"GAR#2 preserves this right to self defense. You cannot go back and Contradict it without making your attempt illegal. Neither can you reiterate a previous resolution with operative lines without violating the no Duplication rule. Sorry, ambassador, but this idea was DOA."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Great. Now where exactly does my proposal forbid that?

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Great. The act can be still forbidden, right? Just if something is consented into, it does not make that legal.

I agree with your first point, but not your second. Previous proposals on war have been ruled illegal for contradicting Rights & Duties on this point, and it is my understanding that the prevailing sense of the ruling is:

• Rights & Duties defines war as consensual
• therefore, every nation has to be allowed to consent to war
• therefore, war, including a category thereof, cannot be forbidden

Now, that ruling may have changed (and if it has there's no guarantee it's been changed publicly) so I'm not saying that your proposal "is" illegal - just that appears to be to me, as a note of caution against risking submitting it and getting it deleted.

Irrespective of the above, you should be aware that considerably milder versions of this proposal have failed in the past. There is a snowball's chance in hell of such a strongly worded proposal passing.

[Dark Fire]

Great. Now where exactly does my proposal forbid that?

Great. The act can be still forbidden, right? Just if something is consented into, it does not make that legal.

I agree with your first point, but not your second. Previous proposals on war have been ruled illegal for contradicting Rights & Duties on this point, and it is my understanding that the prevailing sense of the ruling is:

• Rights & Duties defines war as consensual
• therefore, every nation has to be allowed to consent to war
• therefore, war, including a category thereof, cannot be forbidden

Now, that ruling may have changed (and if it has there's no guarantee it's been changed publicly) so I'm not saying that your proposal "is" illegal - just that appears to be to me, as a note of caution against risking submitting it and getting it deleted.

[...]

Can somebody else comment on that problem?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: on the legality? I've never seen the rulings but I've heard similar statements about them made. So...probably? On the odds of this passing, DSR is spot on.

[Dark Fire]

OOC: on the legality? I've never seen the rulings but I've heard similar statements about them made. So...probably? On the odds of this passing, DSR is spot on.

Um... why? War is bad, leads to lots of casualities, economic problems...

[Defwa]

OOC: on the legality? I've never seen the rulings but I've heard similar statements about them made. So...probably? On the odds of this passing, DSR is spot on.

Um... why? War is bad, leads to lots of casualities, economic problems...

OOC this isn't the EU. We're not all friends here

[Dark Fire]

Um... why? War is bad, leads to lots of casualities, economic problems...

OOC this isn't the EU. We're not all friends here

War affects all partipiciants, usually negatively.

[Defwa]

OOC this isn't the EU. We're not all friends here

War affects all partipiciants, usually negatively.

Who are you talking to, ambassador? I haven't said anything.

OOC okay, so war shouldn't be taken lightly. But you seem to not understand how nations interact or how this game is played

[Dark Fire]

OOC this isn't the EU. We're not all friends here

You already cannot force war on any state without them wanting to, so...
But if they would want to do war with you, both nations think they can win. And that usually means that both sides are able to damage the opponent.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: on the legality? I've never seen the rulings but I've heard similar statements about them made. So...probably? On the odds of this passing, DSR is spot on.

Um... why? War is bad, leads to lots of casualities, economic problems...

"I don't know how the Dark Fire strategeos plans military action, but the C.D.S.P. Strategic Command fights wars to win them and secure a strategic advantage. We only expend military capital when said advantages cannot be acquired at a lesser cost. This is not a new thought process; it is the mark of any good strategician, and many members have them. So your claim is that war is overwhelmingly damaging for all parties is at least partially flawed: it's entirely possible to wage a very productive war."

[Defwa]

OOC this isn't the EU. We're not all friends here

You already cannot force war on any state without them wanting to, so...
But if they would want to do war with you, both nations think they can win. And that usually means that both sides are able to damage the opponent.

That has nothing to do with my question, ambassador.

OOC that has nothing to do with what I said. Yes war is damaging, that is rather the point. But considering there are many reasons for war and you're not at all opposed to allowing aggression against non member nations shows that you don't actually care about the victims and have no idea how this organization operates.
We're not allies and do not have to treat each other as such. We're a loose group of nations that impose regulations on ourselves

[Wrapper]

I'll have to address this out-of-character, as my nation is pacifist to the extreme, and my representatives would blindly support such legislation attempts.

I have to agree with the argument that this contradicts GAR#2. Just as an example:

WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

That statement gives individual member nations (but not the WA as a whole) the right to take part in such a war "at their discretion". Any legislation attempting to totally ban war would remove such discretion. Therefore, a ban on war would contradict this clause, rendering such a ban illegal.

[Dark Fire]

I'll have to address this out-of-character, as my nation is pacifist to the extreme, and my representatives would blindly support such legislation attempts.

I have to agree with the argument that this contradicts GAR#2. Just as an example:

WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

That statement gives individual member nations (but not the WA as a whole) the right to take part in such a war "at their discretion". Any legislation attempting to totally ban war would remove such discretion. Therefore, a ban on war would contradict this clause, rendering such a ban illegal.

WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Well, no? Those who wish to avoid war must be targeted by nonmember states- member states cannot declare war against nation states who don't consent. And declaring war against nonmember states is, well, not prohibited under this proposal.

[Cedoria]

Noticing that wars result in lots of deaths, social problems, crimes, and the destruction of buildings and land
Declaring that the benefits for the war industry are not a sufficient reason for allowing unnecessary wars
Acknowledging that member nations still have to defend themselves from nonmember states
the World Assembly

Forbids all member states to begin wars against other member states.
Mandates member states to ignore all obligations to partipiciate in wars against member states from organisations they are in, excluding the World Assembly and its subdivisions, if either that organisation or a member of that organisation began that war.

Early draft.
Category:Social Justice.
Strength:Significant/Strong

What, no, just... No.

The Cedorian ambassador predicts that if this proposal ever makes it off the ground, it will be shot down in flames like a Junker over London. We would vote NO against any violation of our right to self-defence.