[PASSED] Wartime Looting and Pillage

[Separatist Peoples]

"Minor note, I think you should change 'Pillaging' to 'Pillage', as you don't actually use the term 'pillaging' anywhere in the proposal other than the title and subtitle. And we've already seen that some people will literally claim non-compliance on grounds of different conjugations of words!"

"I'm not sure this was ever addressed?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

"You know, I swear I reread the minutes...that's an easy fix that I'll jump on. It's nice to have legislators actually pointing out loopholes."

[Separatist Peoples]

Looking at this again, it looks like you've covered all the bases you set out to. One small item (in a couple of discrete spots) is nagging at me, though, and that's the language of "within [a nation's] jurisdiction." I can already smell the argument brewing "Well, this is occupied territory, so our court system doesn't have proper jurisdiction, sorry," interpreting "jurisdiction" in the narrowest geographic sense. I wonder if you have the space to change this to "jurisdiction or effective control."

If not, it's probably not a huge worry; most reasonable nations will understand that they indeed have jurisdiction over their own armed forces, location be damned. Compliance paranoia runs deep in our office for some reason.

Ooc: apologies for the double post, iPhones suck with the forum coding and I'm a lazy jerk.
IC: "Ordinarily I'd not put it past nations to muddy the waters of their own jurisdiction to avoid compliance. In this case, however, the jurisdiction extends to the members of their military. Claiming they had no such jurisdiction would be the same as declaring the breakdown of martial order; military law would literally not apply to soldiers. Since the nations most likely to obfuscate to maintain sovereignty are also generally those who value large, well-ordered military forces, I'm actually not very concerned about that loophole. War-hawks and tinpot dictators are notoriously prissy about that."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy.

"The grammar in this still reads a bit funny to me. 'against a civilian population and property'? Maybe..."against civilians or their property"?"

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[Separatist Peoples]

"Adjusted. I'm looking at submitting this soon. Probably after the queue clears up. I'd like more input. While I very much appreciate Ms. Chinmusic's input, I find it frustrating that this has had such little interest from many of the other active ambassadors. I thank those few other delegations who have helped out, and glare menacingly at those who haven't (you know who you are!). Since I don't want to abuse the legislative good will of the Demure Abyssaplegy, they can expect a large gift basket in their office, including a 2-month pass to exempt them from fees for the use of the third floor restroom my office, and a signed promise not to poison their drinks with laxatives for as long. The rest of you can keep paying the exorbitant fee."

"Oh, um, and speak now or forever hold your peace, 'cause it's nearing submission."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Adjusted. I'm looking at submitting this soon. Probably after the queue clears up. I'd like more input. While I very much appreciate Ms. Chinmusic's input, I find it frustrating that this has had such little interest from many of the other active ambassadors. I thank those few other delegations who have helped out, and glare menacingly at those who haven't (you know who you are!). Since I don't want to abuse the legislative good will of the Demure Abyssaplegy, they can expect a large gift basket in their office, including a 2-month pass to exempt them from fees for the use of the third floor restroom my office, and a signed promise not to poison their drinks with laxatives for as long. The rest of you can keep paying the exorbitant fee."

"Oh, um, and speak now or forever hold your peace, 'cause it's nearing submission."

Daisy suspiciously pushes away her coffee mug. The Vice-Colonel absent-mindedly keeps swigging.

"Many thanks for your generosity. Nonetheless, I am getting a little tired of the sound of my own voice,* so I'm going to bow out and hope someone else steps up to comment. In the meantime I do hope you get more input - and wish you luck when it is submitted."

~ Ms. Chinmusic



* This post is in-character, naturally.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Article II. Wartime Pillaging

...

3. Member states’ military forces are obliged to limit deliberate targeting of civilian property, except where such action is rendered an absolutely military necessity, and shall take all possible steps to protect civilian property from destruction in the territory they effectively control.

4. The use of violence against civilian persons or property for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member states.

I found two final quibbles: one, the adverb -> adjective switch as marked in II.3; and in II.4, the word "intimidation" would find a comfortable home if you've got room (~18 characters with spaces, serial commas, and the word "or") - the logic being that while such violence might never be used to coerce specific acts by the occupied civilian population, a few random executions here and there might be thought to make things run more smoothly - to cow people generally.

I'll look at it again tomorrow as well, before the Blernsball League Ultra Final (go Parrots!), but I honestly can't see any other things to fix at this point. I think this gets in queue pretty quickly after submission.

[Separatist Peoples]

Article II. Wartime Pillaging

...

3. Member states’ military forces are obliged to limit deliberate targeting of civilian property, except where such action is rendered an absolutely military necessity, and shall take all possible steps to protect civilian property from destruction in the territory they effectively control.

4. The use of violence against civilian persons or property for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member states.

I found two final quibbles: one, the adverb -> adjective switch as marked in II.3; and in II.4, the word "intimidation" would find a comfortable home if you've got room (~18 characters with spaces, serial commas, and the word "or") - the logic being that while such violence might never be used to coerce specific acts by the occupied civilian population, a few random executions here and there might be thought to make things run more smoothly - to cow people generally.

I'll look at it again tomorrow as well, before the Blernsball League Ultra Final (go Parrots!), but I honestly can't see any other things to fix at this point. I think this gets in queue pretty quickly after submission.

"I believe that the adjective agreement issue is one stemming from poor transfer from master draft to circulated draft, as it isn't an issue in my master copy...that's what you get when you don't pay interns.

"As to your concern regarding intimidation, do you not feel that coercion covers intimidation? I'm not seeing especial leeway for nonspecific aggression towards civilians, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding your concern, but I'd like to address it to prevent any loophole abuse.

"Also, it's come to my attention that this might affect domestic military law enforcement while a conflict rages abroad, specifically in Article I. To this end, I've added the phrase "within a theatre of operation" after "civilian noncombatants", as the updated text reflects. I think this covers potential issues with potentially denying Military Police's legal confiscation a civilian contractor's camera or spliff."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"As to your concern regarding intimidation, do you not feel that coercion covers intimidation? I'm not seeing especial leeway for nonspecific aggression towards civilians, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding your concern, but I'd like to address it to prevent any loophole abuse.

Well, as with a number of questions I've asked of prospective resolution authors, this might simply be one of the fevered imaginings of our paranoid, cynical, and heavily drugged-up WA Compliance Office staff, more than a serious concern. But it's just possible to read "coercion" as applying to specific edicts only (e.g., "All Flipistani nationals in the occupation zone must march to the prison facility three miles thataway - and if you do not comply, you will be shot."), versus intimidation, which might be a more generalized affair (e.g., "When we get into town, round up the city leaders' antique furniture and burn it publicly, just to show the population who's really in charge here now.") It's possibly a fine distinction, but if the terms are redundant, they're redundant the other way: "intimidation" includes the intimidation component of coercing the population to do a certain particular thing, but "coercion" might not cover all instances of pillage or illegal summary execution for mere ("mere") intimidation or psychological shock.

Other ambassadors including yourself have greater experience navigating the ridiculous waters of compliance in this assembly, but our (granted, slightly insane) staff called it to my attention as a possible loophole.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, as with a number of questions I've asked of prospective resolution authors, this might simply be one of the fevered imaginings of our paranoid, cynical, and heavily drugged-up WA Compliance Office staff, more than a serious concern. But it's just possible to read "coercion" as applying to specific edicts only (e.g., "All Flipistani nationals in the occupation zone must march to the prison facility three miles thataway - and if you do not comply, you will be shot."), versus intimidation, which might be a more generalized affair (e.g., "When we get into town, round up the city leaders' antique furniture and burn it publicly, just to show the population who's really in charge here now.") It's possibly a fine distinction, but if the terms are redundant, they're redundant the other way: "intimidation" includes the intimidation component of coercing the population to do a certain particular thing, but "coercion" might not cover all instances of pillage or illegal summary execution for mere ("mere") intimidation or psychological shock.

Other ambassadors including yourself have greater experience navigating the ridiculous waters of compliance in this assembly, but our (granted, slightly insane) staff called it to my attention as a possible loophole.

“Ah, I see what you mean now, ambassador. Coercion is a term that covers forcing people to do something by way of force or threats. It encompasses intimidation, which would be something like: “Cooperate or we’ll fuck your block up with our scary howitzers,” and includes other methods of “persuasion” that intimidation doesn’t, on its own, include, such as threats of violence that don’t get clearly delineated: “Cooperate or something bad might just maybe happen involving our howitzers and your block”, or the promise of selective violence against particular groups: “Cooperate and we’ll totally fuck up the other block that you hate with our morally screwed up howitzers.”

“It’s also worth noting that that, from a legal standpoint, coercion is often considered the intentional act of compelling cooperation, whereas intimidation itself is a much vaguer concept; a military force can intimidate a civilian body without ever intending to do so or taking advantage of that intimidation. Hell, have you ever been sitting on a second story balcony and had an armor commander peeking out of the turret make level eye contact with you? Talk about intimidating. So, while I don't disagree with you, I'm hoping the current wording is sufficiently broad to contain examples as I outlined without causing legal problems stemming from having threatening-looking equipment, and nations intentionally blurring that line.”

*OOC: True story. It’s frightening even when the tank is on your side!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Coercion is a term that covers forcing people to do something by way of force or threats. It encompasses intimidation, which would be something like: “Cooperate or we’ll fuck your block up with our scary howitzers,” and includes other methods of “persuasion” that intimidation doesn’t... intimidation itself is a much vaguer concept; a military force can intimidate a civilian body without ever intending to do so or taking advantage of that intimidation. Hell, have you ever been sitting on a second story balcony and had an armor commander peeking out of the turret make level eye contact with you? Talk about intimidating...

Hah - no, I can't say I've had that pleasure. You've quite assuaged our terminology concerns, and I see nothing else to poke or quibble at. Break a leg!

[Separatist Peoples]

...Coercion is a term that covers forcing people to do something by way of force or threats. It encompasses intimidation, which would be something like: “Cooperate or we’ll fuck your block up with our scary howitzers,” and includes other methods of “persuasion” that intimidation doesn’t... intimidation itself is a much vaguer concept; a military force can intimidate a civilian body without ever intending to do so or taking advantage of that intimidation. Hell, have you ever been sitting on a second story balcony and had an armor commander peeking out of the turret make level eye contact with you? Talk about intimidating...

Hah - no, I can't say I've had that pleasure. You've quite assuaged our terminology concerns, and I see nothing else to poke or quibble at. Break a leg!

"Its fascinating. And unfortunate when you're in nothing but a bathrobe and the tank commander outranks you...erm, yes, well anyways, are there any thoughts on the inclusion of "within a theatre of operation" to Wartime Looting? No issues with this potentially interfering with silly things like domestic law enforcement on military bases, etc.? I hope to submit this for a test run by next week. Maybe sooner if this gets fewer comments, silence being acceptance and all."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Also, it's come to my attention that this might affect domestic military law enforcement while a conflict rages abroad, specifically in Article I. To this end, I've added the phrase "within a theatre of operation" after "civilian noncombatants", as the updated text reflects. I think this covers potential issues with potentially denying Military Police's legal confiscation a civilian contractor's camera or spliff."

"This is a very nuanced reading! Our delegation's admiration for yours grows ever more...throbbing...by the day."

Daisy snatches the microphone back off the Vice-Colonel and resumes.

"Anyway...the change seems fine, but it leaves a concern about post-conflict zones. Was post-war Berlin, for example, which Soviet troops ran wild through really a "theatre of operation" anymore? The German military had been totally destroyed. In fact, this objection returns to our initial concern about limiting the definition to a time of "armed conflict": often the worst outrages are committed post-conflict.

"I don't think you should hurry on this. I know you're disappointed not to have received more input, but the queue still won't be clear for a week anyway so there is still time for those ambassadors who so regularly criticise anyone who fails to undertake a thorough drafting process to step in and prove just why they're so insistent. Any second now..."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

"Also, it's come to my attention that this might affect domestic military law enforcement while a conflict rages abroad, specifically in Article I. To this end, I've added the phrase "within a theatre of operation" after "civilian noncombatants", as the updated text reflects. I think this covers potential issues with potentially denying Military Police's legal confiscation a civilian contractor's camera or spliff."

"This is a very nuanced reading! Our delegation's admiration for yours grows ever more...throbbing...by the day."

Daisy snatches the microphone back off the Vice-Colonel and resumes.

"Anyway...the change seems fine, but it leaves a concern about post-conflict zones. Was post-war Berlin, for example, which Soviet troops ran wild through really a "theatre of operation" anymore? The German military had been totally destroyed. In fact, this objection returns to our initial concern about limiting the definition to a time of "armed conflict": often the worst outrages are committed post-conflict.

"I don't think you should hurry on this. I know you're disappointed not to have received more input, but the queue still won't be clear for a week anyway so there is still time for those ambassadors who so regularly criticise anyone who fails to undertake a thorough drafting process to step in and prove just why they're so insistent. Any second now..."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

“I’ve been doing some consideration on that, and come up with two sticky issues, one related to my use of the term “theatre/theater”, and one in reference to the issues of post-conflict war crimes.

“The first, the use of theaters, is an issue of military terminology. A theater is an area of military strategic consideration that encompasses more than just active conflict, but generally that area that could be a part of a combined arms approach to warfare. From a terminology standpoint, it encompasses anywhere that there is a war, and potentially an occupation, which would assuage the issues with post-conflict violations, but it actually defeats the original intention: limiting the powers of domestic or foreign military police from enforcing the law on base. Even while restricting confiscation during wartime leaves many bases at a disadvantage, especially when it comes to civilian espionage. As such, I’m trying to find a very concise way to address this, as I don’t have many characters left at all. I hope it will come to me, likely my office-cum-toilet stall, as it usually does, but I’m a bit disheartened at the moment. Declaring exemptions on military bases will just have nations declaring military bases over vast swathes of land."

Bell pulls out a large book titled “GURPS: The Real World” and pages through it, keeping it lifted such as to cover his view of the Vice-Colonel's engorgedness.

“Ah, yes...Most large-scale, modern militaries in The Real World, which is an excellent hypothetical resource to draw on, consider theaters on a peacetime scale, such as the United States, or the canonically-defunct Soviet Union: they pre-divided many areas of potential operation and actual operation into theaters. This included occupation zones, such as occupied European states. Theoretically, the same situation would realistically apply here, in real life.

“As to the second concern, Ms. Chinmusic, based on what I see here in the “Second World War” Campaign section, I’m not sure how a one-sided conflict, as you’ve described, is any less an armed conflict. I’d intended to write a resolution on occupations anyways, which would extend the protections to denizens of occupied territory, but the point between disintegration of an enemy military and the formal end of a war still seems to fit the loose description of armed conflict.

"I'll probably end up being patient anyways, but it always drags out the comments when I threaten submission."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"How about specifying it applies 'in the course of their military operations'? That way it would exclude things that fall outside the scope of military operations, like domestic law enforcement or internal disciplinary matters, but cover both war and post-war actions regardless of the "theatre"? Just a suggestion. I hope others have better ones."

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[Separatist Peoples]

"I think the new wording of the clause will alleviate the worst of the issues. I've updated the posted draft."

[Separatist Peoples]

"This has been submitted. Since, over the next 36 hours, the Queue will shorten considerably, I feel that a campaign and relying on Rubber Stampers will get this to quorum."

[Normlpeople]

"This has been submitted. Since, over the next 36 hours, the Queue will shorten considerably, I feel that a campaign and relying on Rubber Stampers will get this to quorum."

Clover smiled "Actually, the rubber stamp brigade seems to have shrunk considerably from previous highs, environmental proposals aside. That said, I shall put my not-so-rubber stamp on it. Good luck!"

[Separatist Peoples]

"This has been submitted. Since, over the next 36 hours, the Queue will shorten considerably, I feel that a campaign and relying on Rubber Stampers will get this to quorum."

Clover smiled "Actually, the rubber stamp brigade seems to have shrunk considerably from previous highs, environmental proposals aside. That said, I shall put my not-so-rubber stamp on it. Good luck!"

"Many thanks, Clover! I'm not sure about the shrinking rubber stamp brigade shrinking as much being outnumbered. 81 approvals to get to quorum...I remember when it was closer to 50. I don't know if it's interest in international politics or the draw of those inter-regional political raids that have become vogue lately. These days a proposal requires an approval an hour to make it."

[Separatist Peoples]

"And that's Quorum. A very heartening show of support. That was less than 12 hours."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Well I'll be damned Bell! You managed to survive an initial "Mouse-stack" in the first few minutes, and are leading. Congratulations on no small feat. As it stands we have given this our red seal of approval, and have voted for it accordingly.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: This proposal was in drafting for five months, with the author repeatedly begging for comment. I really don't understand how people can have such issues with it.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

OOC: This proposal was in drafting for five months, with the author repeatedly begging for comment. I really don't understand how people can have such issues with it.

It tries to tell them what to do, and we all know that is the evilest thing that this abhorrent body can do!

[Bananaistan]

I am pleased to have cast the Bananamen vote in favour of this proposal.

[Shaktirajya]

Noting the beginning of the resolution stating that "Military Conflict is inevitable" (it is not) along with various vaguely defined statements and the ARBITRARY curtailing of aspects integral to warfare as a whole, we, the Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, must vote AGAINST this resolution on the grounds that we think it hypocritical to not condemn warfare as a whole, or failing that, to come up with a more COMPREHENSIVE scheme for what constitutes war-crimes. We believe that the adoption of such a resolution would lead to an unnecessary expenditure of resources on our part to uphold the provisions aforesaid in this resolution as we maintain only the most basic of self-defense forces.

Signed,

Vaktrihi Rajarajashwaaryaaha Hypatyaaha Sophyaaha Dharmaranyaaha Shaktirajasya.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Noting the beginning of the resolution stating that "Military Conflict is inevitable" (it is not)

Seriously? What happens if my nation decides that we are going to annex your nation and refuses all diplomatic overtures, threatening invasion unless you accede to our ultimatum of immediate annexation?