[PASSED] Wartime Looting and Pillage

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire of Ainocra

Supports this measure, and we have voted accordingly.

[Unavailable]

The Sith Empire of Unavailable supports looting, pillaging and enslaving enemy soldiers and civilians for use as workers, gladiators, sex-slaves or anything else if the need arises. We don't support looting, pillaging and/or enslaving those that surrender in advance, although we will conscript all their children between 8 and 18 years old for reprogramming as our janissary soldiers.

Therefore we voted against this proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Sith Empire of Unavailable supports looting, pillaging and enslaving enemy soldiers and civilians for use as workers, gladiators, sex-slaves or anything else if the need arises. We don't support looting, pillaging and/or enslaving those that surrender in advance, although we will conscript all their children between 8 and 18 years old for reprogramming as our janissary soldiers.

Therefore we voted against this proposal.

"Literally none of that is legal. Since I won't cater to those who won't obey the law anyways, I can happily tell you that I couldn't care less."

[Two Chaoses]

While the Duochaosean people are opposed to all forms of war, nevertheless, we understand it is a preventable tragedy that happens all too often. With that being a given, it is our opinion that mitigating its effects on the civilian populations of the nations involved must be a priority. As a result, after consultation with our ministers and with a firm eye towards our principles as a people, we have decided to support this measure.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

"No, it never states that war is inevitable. Just occasionally necessary. The "arbitrary" limits are limits protecting civilians. Your interpretation is, at best, flat out wrong. Probably maliciously so."

[UED]

The UED will vote for this resolution though it will probably break the one of the clauses at least once....




Ok maybe more

[Shaktirajya]

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?

We can make it very hard for an invader using non-violent resistance. We, unlike Gandhi, see his conception of durgraha, or in laymen's terms, using forceful compulsion (cutting off food and supplies etc.) to achieve our ends as entirely legitimate. We have billions of citizens and much "soft power."

[Shaktirajya]

"No, it never states that war is inevitable. Just occasionally necessary. The "arbitrary" limits are limits protecting civilians. Your interpretation is, at best, flat out wrong. Probably maliciously so."

I am much too lazy to go through the points one-by-one but if all of these measures had to be implemented, everyone would be guilty of war-crimes. As I said, a more comprehensive resolution should be drafted.

[Two Chaoses]

"No, it never states that war is inevitable. Just occasionally necessary. The "arbitrary" limits are limits protecting civilians. Your interpretation is, at best, flat out wrong. Probably maliciously so."

I am much too lazy to go through the points one-by-one but if all of these measures had to be implemented, everyone would be guilty of war-crimes. As I said, a more comprehensive resolution should be drafted.

If you have specific complaints, it would be beneficial to raise them. However, I have pored over the resolution, and while this unfortunately allows for war, this does give reasonable and clear guidance on what is and is not permissible action against civilians and civilian targets during war. It is a measured and reasoned resolution that does not make "everyone... guilty of war crimes." It is for that reason that I have voted in favor of this measure.

[Casl]

Casl is firmly against this measure citing:

'Essential supplies seized from non-government entities by military forces shall be replaced or compensated for as soon as possible by the nation responsible for the seizure.'

As problematic and excessive, enemy nations should not be compensated on any level for necessary resource acquisition by our military forces.

[Iblania]

I don't see a reason to vote against this proposal. One could argue that it would make military operations more difficult, but this passage:

seizure of essential supplies, such as food, water, or medical supplies not distributed as humanitarian aid, and material essential for immediate military operations, shall not be considered wartime looting

clearly states looting will only be prohibited if the supplies are inessential.

The proposal only affects rogue nations that do go around looting and pillaging everything they find, and shouldn't we be above that level already, in any case?

Iblania has voted FOR this proposal.

[Two Chaoses]

Casl is firmly against this measure citing:

'Essential supplies seized from non-government entities by military forces shall be replaced or compensated for as soon as possible by the nation responsible for the seizure.'

As problematic and excessive, enemy nations should not be compensated on any level for necessary resource acquisition by our military forces.

And that type of belief, put in practice, has led to several horrors in history.

[Mundiferrum]

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?

We can make it very hard for an invader using non-violent resistance. We, unlike Gandhi, see his conception of durgraha, or in laymen's terms, using forceful compulsion (cutting off food and supplies etc.) to achieve our ends as entirely legitimate. We have billions of citizens and much "soft power."

And we have bombs and creative interpretations of WA resolutions.

Though we sort of hate the title, that, we should probably blame ourselves for for not commenting before. We pledge our full support.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

We support this resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

"No, it never states that war is inevitable. Just occasionally necessary. The "arbitrary" limits are limits protecting civilians. Your interpretation is, at best, flat out wrong. Probably maliciously so."

I am much too lazy to go through the points one-by-one but if all of these measures had to be implemented, everyone would be guilty of war-crimes. As I said, a more comprehensive resolution should be drafted.

"At least you admit your own failing, ambassador. Without this law, that "soft power" your citizens use will be met with machine guns and bombs, and no amount of disobedience will prevent the rivers of blood that would flow if one of the less compassionate states invaded. This law ensures your foolish approach will work at all."

[Casl]

Casl is firmly against this measure citing:

'Essential supplies seized from non-government entities by military forces shall be replaced or compensated for as soon as possible by the nation responsible for the seizure.'

As problematic and excessive, enemy nations should not be compensated on any level for necessary resource acquisition by our military forces.

And that type of belief, put in practice, has led to several horrors in history.

Casl has never begun a war of aggression against any other state, invaders and aggressors deserve no protection.

When the corporations of dangerous states contribute to that nations war efforts they will use to prevent having their assets seized (regardless of those assets immediate or long term involvement) and as a result efforts to curb enemy industry will be undermined.

The validity in seizure of the private goods of an enemy nation in the defense of Casl will forever be defended by Casl.

[Venice1995]

I would just like to comment on the phrasing of the first sentence:

"Noting the necessity of military conflict"

I am not sure I agree with the use of the word "necessity".

[Lemmingtopias]

"Noting the necessity of military conflict"

I am afraid I just cannot support this statement being added to our Resolutions.

I am against.

[Separatist Peoples]

And that type of belief, put in practice, has led to several horrors in history.

Casl has never begun a war of aggression against any other state, invaders and aggressors deserve no protection.

When the corporations of dangerous states contribute to that nations war efforts they will use to prevent having their assets seized (regardless of those assets immediate or long term involvement) and as a result efforts to curb enemy industry will be undermined.

The validity in seizure of the private goods of an enemy nation in the defense of Casl will forever be defended by Casl.

"This doesn't force you to return or compensate assets seized to the enemy. It is designed to protect civilians who are not aggressors. If you find enemy materiel, nothing stops you from seizing or denying the enemy of it's use without compensation. Nothing at all."

[Araraukar]

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?

"At least you admit your own failing, ambassador. Without this law, that "soft power" your citizens use will be met with machine guns and bombs, and no amount of disobedience will prevent the rivers of blood that would flow if one of the less compassionate states invaded. This law ensures your foolish approach will work at all."

OOC: Except in NS war is a mutual effort, so a player can well say "well you can't attack me, so nyah" and give the usual reasons (different universe/dimension/distance/etc.), and be right. It's every player's "right to be difficult" within the constraints of RP, but to demand everyone else to agree with your RP reasons, won't fly. inb4Kennystrokeshisbeard

Still, SP, kinda disappointed with the reply from "your citizens" onwards, as that may be your RP reality, not everyone else's.

"No, it never states that war is inevitable. Just occasionally necessary. The "arbitrary" limits are limits protecting civilians. Your interpretation is, at best, flat out wrong. Probably maliciously so."

"Now where have I heard that before...?"

My facts are right, yours are wrong.

"Ah, yes. Everyone who's so certain of their facts, will find their facts not applying in many cases around here... War isn't necessary. Sometimes, for some poor sods, it may be impossible to avoid, but a necessity? Please, you give physical weaponry far too much credit."

OOC: Yes, it's still Janis, yes, she's acting slightly out of character, yes, I'll eventually get around to giving the RP reason. Oh, and voted for with PPU.

[Separatist Peoples]

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?

"At least you admit your own failing, ambassador. Without this law, that "soft power" your citizens use will be met with machine guns and bombs, and no amount of disobedience will prevent the rivers of blood that would flow if one of the less compassionate states invaded. This law ensures your foolish approach will work at all."

OOC: Except in NS war is a mutual effort, so a player can well say "well you can't attack me, so nyah" and give the usual reasons (different universe/dimension/distance/etc.), and be right. It's every player's "right to be difficult" within the constraints of RP, but to demand everyone else to agree with your RP reasons, won't fly. inb4Kennystrokeshisbeard

Still, SP, kinda disappointed with the reply from "your citizens" onwards, as that may be your RP reality, not everyone else's.

"No, it never states that war is inevitable. Just occasionally necessary. The "arbitrary" limits are limits protecting civilians. Your interpretation is, at best, flat out wrong. Probably maliciously so."

"Now where have I heard that before...?"

My facts are right, yours are wrong.

"Ah, yes. Everyone who's so certain of their facts, will find their facts not applying in many cases around here... War isn't necessary. Sometimes, for some poor sods, it may be impossible to avoid, but a necessity? Please, you give physical weaponry far too much credit."

OOC: Yes, it's still Janis, yes, she's acting slightly out of character, yes, I'll eventually get around to giving the RP reason. Oh, and voted for with PPU.

OOC: I can’t easily equate OOC warfare rules with IC warfare, because the OOC version is so incredibly disparate with IC war. That’s why I tend to phrase it, within the resolution, as armed conflict, though warfare makes an excellent synonym for more casual conversation.

Still, SP, kinda disappointed with the reply from "your citizens" onwards, as that may be your RP reality, not everyone else's.

OOC: I’m struggling to see how, assuming the conflict is OOCly agreed upon and can therefore happen, what I spelled out isn’t possible. If we include forms of conflict, even those that are non-lethal or don’t involve weapons, like telepathy and magic, there is still no legal block to prevent a nation from just killing those protesters. The only ways to prevent that are OOC, and therefore not affected by GA laws. The only way to have that is to species-wank so hard, nobody would have any semblance of fun, and I’m one of the first to point out such wankery as an element of RP.

[Republic of Vincennia]

Completely agree my friend. I vote yes.

[Drewlantis]

"I suppose I should throw in my two cents too." Ambassador Burgenheimer states as he stands. "I unfortunately must cast my vote against this resolution, due to the fact that my Emperor has a standing order of artifact hunting. It's a form of taxation as well as being a reminder to the occupied people who is in charge. We take many "artifacts" of our enemies because we wish to engage in a cultural conquest, in order to promote Drewlantian ideals and encourage the natives of occupied provinces of the Empire to embrace our ideals rather than that of their own. The cultural aversion they have to us sometimes jeopardizes the smooth transition of power and so we make it a habit to strip away some of their culture in order to promote stability and cooperation." Burgenheimer coughs and looks around his room at the artifacts he has from other nations. "It is a good idea, but impractical with our current wartime strategy."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I unfortunately must cast my vote against this resolution, due to the fact that my Emperor has a standing order of artifact hunting. It's a form of taxation as well as being a reminder to the occupied people who is in charge.

“This really isn’t supposed to deal with occupations, so I’m not sure I can argue on that front effectively, but I’m struggling to see how seizing cultural treasures as a form of reprisal is in any way morally acceptable.

We take many "artifacts" of our enemies because we wish to engage in a cultural conquest, in order to promote Drewlantian ideals and encourage the natives of occupied provinces of the Empire to embrace our ideals rather than that of their own.

“No doubt violating several WA laws on cultural heritage protection in the process. Holding a population essentially hostage by seizing their artefacts is an excellent way to galvanize them against your culture instead of winning them over by it. It also, no doubt, ruins copious amounts of valuable, researchable material in the process, losing countless centuries of knowledge and rich culture. On the whole, the Empire should count itself lucky that it hasn’t attempted to encroach on any Confederate Dominion territory with its cultural conquest: Not all societies are willing to accept such a base insult to their very identity.

The cultural aversion they have to us sometimes jeopardizes the smooth transition of power and so we make it a habit to strip away some of their culture in order to promote stability and cooperation."

“Sounds like a violation of Freedom of Expression and Charter on Civil Rights. As a rule, this delegation makes no allowances for violators of international law in its drafts. Terribly sorry.”

[Shaktirajya]

The resolution says war is a necessity. We reiterate that it is not necessary.

We think it arbitrary to declare that the owners should be left essential supplies for their basic upkeep. How is this defined? How are belligerents supposed to make sure that they have left necessary provisions for enemy combatants? Call up the international community in a fire-fight to make sure it's fine and dandy? Why is it OK to loot food and water as long as it isn't marked as humanitarian aid?