[PASSED] Wartime Looting and Pillage

[Separatist Peoples]

"Can you think of a more insidious punishment?"

"Yes, Ambassador Bell, I can. You could send them to work as WA interns. Or would that violate the regulations on torture, either way... to the point at hand. I would like to see a clarification that disarming the citizens of an occupied territory shall not fall into this category. I don't feel that leaving a population armed is a sound tactical decision, yet removing their arms may fall afoul of this.

I would also like a provision that allows for seizure of items that are of significant cultural or monetary value, for the sole purpose of relocating them to a safe zone, on the condition that they be returned when the location(s) of the owners are no longer in danger of having the item destroyed. Then again, this is hard to word, especially since some less-honorable soldiers would neglect to return it.

All in all, I like the way it is shaping up. I support this wholeheartedly."

"I had considered that, the C.D.S.P. having more privately owned firearms than citizens. I believe that such an issue isn't as large as you might consider; the disarming of citizens is a lengthily, difficult proccess, as areas where access to weaponry is easy tend to incite a strong attachment to them, such a behavior would be strategically best suited for an occupation, and not an invasion, a time where the authority of rule is already in great flux. I doubt that such an incident would be especially prevalent before a occupation, and dealing with rights and duties in occupations is a separate project of mine.

"However, that is a legitimate concern. One could always interpret the term "essential for immediate military operations" to include firearms, as even civilian weapons can be used in a military fashion. There is, of necessity, some flexibility in that interpretation.

"So, now that I've waxed on and given no solid answer, I'll throw you the bone I was driving at before explaining my full intentions and thinking: between the flexibility in I.2's wording and the potential addition of the caveat "subject to WA law" to allow for clarification on confiscation during bona fide occupations, where the threat is more credible, do you think enough middle ground can be reached to address your concerns?"

[Unified earth goverment]

kool ok

[Ainocra]

I would like to see something along the lines of this added

Prohibits: the forceful removal of artistic treasures or cultural artifacts from their native land during an occupation.
Recognizing: that these treasures may be in danger of destruction by armed conflict.
Mandates: that occupying forces may move these objects to a safe location in order to protect and preserve them for future generations.
Insists: that objects so moved be returned to their place of origin as soon as (their safety can be assured) or (danger has passed).

or you know something better written that gives the same basic protections.

[Separatist Peoples]

I would also like a provision that allows for seizure of items that are of significant cultural or monetary value, for the sole purpose of relocating them to a safe zone, on the condition that they be returned when the location(s) of the owners are no longer in danger of having the item destroyed. Then again, this is hard to word, especially since some less-honorable soldiers would neglect to return it.

I would like to see something along the lines of this added

Prohibits: the forceful removal of artistic treasures or cultural artifacts from their native land during an occupation.
Recognizing: that these treasures may be in danger of destruction by armed conflict.
Mandates: that occupying forces may move these objects to a safe location in order to protect and preserve them for future generations.
Insists: that objects so moved be returned to their place of origin as soon as (their safety can be assured) or (danger has passed).

or you know something better written that gives the same basic protections.

"Ambassadors, I do hope my most recent addition has addressed these concerns adequately. I had, originally, intended on writing an entirely separate proposal on the matter. However, I don't think I can address looting and pillaging without touching on it, so I added a caveat, à la On Abortion, hopefully keeping the topic open for future legislation without avoiding a touchy topic entirely. I'd love to hear your concerns, though do note that I am just under the 3,000 character count mark."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I am really not convinced it's a good idea to mix the two. They are fundamentally different crimes. Looting is the taking of personal property. Cultural theft is the taking of public property. Of course there will be some overlap - such as privately owned works of art - but the two probably belong in separate resolutions (although covering the latter is difficult because of the current blocker). Historically international law sees them differently because committing an act of looting is a personal outrage, whereas committing an act of cultural theft is a fundamental crime against the common property. Even the World Assembly sees them differently, with separate 'Human Rights' and 'Cultural Heritage' categories.

"That said, if you are going to include both, I would add 'damage' to 'destruction or theft'. Water damage, for example, could ruin precious artifacts without actually destroying them; relocating those artifacts from a waterlogged city should be permitted.

"Objection to the title notwithstanding, we approve of the other changes made so far."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

"I am really not convinced it's a good idea to mix the two. They are fundamentally different crimes. Looting is the taking of personal property. Cultural theft is the taking of public property. Of course there will be some overlap - such as privately owned works of art - but the two probably belong in separate resolutions (although covering the latter is difficult because of the current blocker). Historically international law sees them differently because committing an act of looting is a personal outrage, whereas committing an act of cultural theft is a fundamental crime against the common property. Even the World Assembly sees them differently, with separate 'Human Rights' and 'Cultural Heritage' categories.

"That said, if you are going to include both, I would add 'damage' to 'destruction or theft'. Water damage, for example, could ruin precious artifacts without actually destroying them; relocating those artifacts from a waterlogged city should be permitted.

"Objection to the title notwithstanding, we approve of the other changes made so far."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

“My concern precisely. I wonder, though, if a Cultural Heritage proposal full of International Security-style mandates would count as a Category violation? That, I suppose, is a debate dependent on the specific example.

“To directly address your concern, Ms. Chinmusic, I had hoped the terms of pillaging would have outlawed stealing art from private citizens anyway, but specifically enumerating it seems wise. I could continue to adjust the clause to only apply to those cultural artefacts and treasures belonging to private citizens, even though they may have a greater public impact, and thus leave the topic of public property theft, specifically as it pertains to art and artefacts, to a separate, yet-privately drafted proposal. I think that may be the most balanced approach to the two overlapping topics we can secure for now.”

Bell sighs loudly, startling the goat Chuckie from his nap beneath the desk. Reaching over to another ambassador’s desk, Bell snatches a few important-looking documents and offers them to Chuckie by way of apology for waking him, which the goat happily accepts. “This is why I liked the idea of sweeping legislation on the topic of occupations to a several-resolution approach, but I suppose it is for the best in the long run. I would be harder to repeal half a dozen rules on war than one individual one, provided we can pass them.”

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bumpity. For the record, the bits on artifacts of cultural relevance are still essentially probationary. I was hoping to get a bit more feedback on including them vs. creating a new law entirely before settling on it. The rest is open for analysis.

[Ainocra]

all in all I Like where this is at the moment.

[Jackonia]

I am in favour of the proposal. looting and pilliging is not respectable even in times of War. I think that actions like these should be restricted wherever possible.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: le Bump. Keep on with the fiery debate. Do I need to cram a line about aborted feotus prostitution in here to liven it up?

Still interested in hearing more about the cultural artifact looting inclusion. I've seen opinions, but not sustained debate, which would be very helpful. To start: I'm inclined to leave it in to cover privately-owned treasures, as that falls in line with the proposal. Would it be more valuable to separate it entirely as include it in a proposal about tangible cultural heritage protection?

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: le Bump. Keep on with the fiery debate. Do I need to cram a line about aborted feotus prostitution in here to liven it up?

Still interested in hearing more about the cultural artifact looting inclusion. I've seen opinions, but not sustained debate, which would be very helpful. To start: I'm inclined to leave it in to cover privately-owned treasures, as that falls in line with the proposal. Would it be more valuable to separate it entirely as include it in a proposal about tangible cultural heritage protection?

Sure... How about foreign soldiers cannot get women pregnant, then force them to have abortions?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: le Bump. Keep on with the fiery debate. Do I need to cram a line about aborted feotus prostitution in here to liven it up?

Still interested in hearing more about the cultural artifact looting inclusion. I've seen opinions, but not sustained debate, which would be very helpful. To start: I'm inclined to leave it in to cover privately-owned treasures, as that falls in line with the proposal. Would it be more valuable to separate it entirely as include it in a proposal about tangible cultural heritage protection?

Sure... How about foreign soldiers cannot get women pregnant, then force them to have abortions?

"That's...incredibly specific, but I think, between the Patient's Rights Act and the Sexual Privacy Act, that's covered. I could add reference to sexual violence in the Pillaging section, to prevent wartime rape, but forced abortions are likely covered. Unless the case can be made that troops not in an occupying role are not obligated to extend WA rights to foreign citizens, but I don't think that would hold."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bumpity.

[The Dark Star Republic]

5. Member states are obliged to return secured artefacts to their rightful governing authority at the cessation of hostilities, and shall compensate owners for damages incurred in the interim.

"I'm wondering about cases where it wouldn't be safe to return them even when hostilities have ended. For example, an art work that needs careful preservation being returned to a city that's just been Stalingrad-ed and is in no fit state to be maintaining high tech museums. Although I suppose as the clause doesn't say 'immediately' nations can probably take their sweet time about it.

7. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence, of a physical or sexual nature, against a civilian population and property by a military entity, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

"Defining violence as 'physical or sexual' seems to exclude the common definition of assault.

"The only other thing I'm wondering about would be declaring an order to commit an act of looting or pillage as a manifestly illegal order.

"Kind of nitpicking for the sake of comment, though, because this proposal looks to be in excellent order."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

5. Member states are obliged to return secured artefacts to their rightful governing authority at the cessation of hostilities, and shall compensate owners for damages incurred in the interim.

"I'm wondering about cases where it wouldn't be safe to return them even when hostilities have ended. For example, an art work that needs careful preservation being returned to a city that's just been Stalingrad-ed and is in no fit state to be maintaining high tech museums. Although I suppose as the clause doesn't say 'immediately' nations can probably take their sweet time about it.

"I think there is enough ambiguity in the phrase to allow for reasonable delay. If nothing else, it could allow for nations to turn ownership to the proper intermediary, such as the foreign government, to repatriate objects of value."

7. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence, of a physical or sexual nature, against a civilian population and property by a military entity, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

"Defining violence as 'physical or sexual' seems to exclude the common definition of assault.

"Upon review, I really think the Sexual Autonomy and Patient's Rights Acts cover this sufficiently, so I removed the specifics. Unless a case can be made that the Sexual Autonomy Act is insufficient at preventing the rape of foreigners, the characters are more valuable elsewhere."

"The only other thing I'm wondering about would be declaring an order to commit an act of looting or pillage as a manifestly illegal order.

"Added. I think its about time the GA noted the necessity of Command Responsibility in war crimes. There should be sufficient wiggle room in the language of the clauses centered on prosecution to allow for both aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be taken into account, such as the relative punishments for disobedience, each nation's specific responsibility of individual officers for the actions of their soldiers, yadda yadda. Thoughts on that would be appreciated.

"Also, there have been very minor tweaks in the formatting. Mostly, the removal of redundancies, such as "destruction or damage" being shortened to "damage", as destruction requires damage."

[The Empire of Ebola]

This is a terrible idea. If you are stupid enough to get into a war and LOSE it you deserve to be looted and pillaged. Here is some advice: DON'T GO TO WAR. Ok so what if you are attacked for no reason? Well in that case when and if you win that war you have EVERY right to strip the attacking nation are of whatever you want. And do not give me that old sob story of poor uninvolved citizens. If the citizens were so innocent they would have OVERTHROWN their war mongering government to begin with!!!! And if you lose the war? Well Darwin says survival of the fittest so too bad there.

Honestly all these ideas trying to civilize warfare, which CANNOT be civilized, is a waste of time and effort.

[Defwa]

This is a terrible idea. If you are stupid enough to get into a war and LOSE it you deserve to be looted and pillaged. Here is some advice: DON'T GO TO WAR. Ok so what if you are attacked for no reason? Well in that case when and if you win that war you have EVERY right to strip the attacking nation are of whatever you want. And do not give me that old sob story of poor uninvolved citizens. If the citizens were so innocent they would have OVERTHROWN their war mongering government to begin with!!!! And if you lose the war? Well Darwin says survival of the fittest so too bad there.

Honestly all these ideas trying to civilize warfare, which CANNOT be civilized, is a waste of time and effort.

It must be so boring to exist in a world so black and white as yours

[The Empire of Ebola]

This is a terrible idea. If you are stupid enough to get into a war and LOSE it you deserve to be looted and pillaged. Here is some advice: DON'T GO TO WAR. Ok so what if you are attacked for no reason? Well in that case when and if you win that war you have EVERY right to strip the attacking nation are of whatever you want. And do not give me that old sob story of poor uninvolved citizens. If the citizens were so innocent they would have OVERTHROWN their war mongering government to begin with!!!! And if you lose the war? Well Darwin says survival of the fittest so too bad there.

Honestly all these ideas trying to civilize warfare, which CANNOT be civilized, is a waste of time and effort.

It must be so boring to exist in a world so black and white as yours

Actually it is quite exciting. Why just the other day at the Gladiatorial games we had over 15000 Ebolan citizens wagering on child-fight night, where orphans fight to the death for a chance at being adopted. 1% of the wagers proceeds went to various charitable organizations.

[Zakuvia]

Ignoring the silliness, what if the war is perpetrated as an act of fiscal reconciliation? What if the sole intent and purpose of the war is to reclaim or gain property?

I'll skip over the part about sexual violence, etc., as only a nation in full contempt of the WA would state they were committing a war for the purpose of committing rape.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is a terrible idea. If you are stupid enough to get into a war and LOSE it you deserve to be looted and pillaged. Here is some advice: DON'T GO TO WAR. Ok so what if you are attacked for no reason? Well in that case when and if you win that war you have EVERY right to strip the attacking nation are of whatever you want. And do not give me that old sob story of poor uninvolved citizens. If the citizens were so innocent they would have OVERTHROWN their war mongering government to begin with!!!! And if you lose the war? Well Darwin says survival of the fittest so too bad there.

Honestly all these ideas trying to civilize warfare, which CANNOT be civilized, is a waste of time and effort.

"I literally cannot put into words how little I think of this line of thinking, or those who espouse it. This tirade actually inspires me even more to pass this, if only to spite you, ambassador. Your comments are noted and roundly ignored."

OOC: you realize this is exactly the kind of legislation that exists in real life, right? Thousands and thousands of lives are protected by this sort of legislation every year.

[The new unitary state]

It should be added that if citizens are hostile toward the soldiers that they are no longer protected under this bill but still have the other rights given by diffrent laws

[Separatist Peoples]

It should be added that if citizens are hostile toward the soldiers that they are no longer protected under this bill but still have the other rights given by diffrent laws

"It already allows soldiers to respond with proportionate force to attack by civilians."

Ignoring the silliness, what if the war is perpetrated as an act of fiscal reconciliation? What if the sole intent and purpose of the war is to reclaim or gain property?

I'll skip over the part about sexual violence, etc., as only a nation in full contempt of the WA would state they were committing a war for the purpose of committing rape.

"This has no bearing on the status of seizing public governmental property, only private property. If you wish to spend the exhorbitant amounts of money to wage a war to settle a debt, you may seize the assets of a government according to this. You may not rob civilians who were not responsible for the welching. I hope that answers your concern, ambassador."

[The new unitary state]

I'm saying once the citizens attack their a militia and subjected to being treated as such therefore they may be looted they allowed them selves to be looted when they picked up a rifle

[The new unitary state]

And the burning or destruction of historical documents should be banded

[Trevor Phillip Enterprises]

"TPI will be willing to "consider" these guidlines during its next exercise in conquest, but seeks not to be held to the unfair scrutinty of the international community of the actions our soldiers partake in." - Ron Jakowski, TPI consultant