[DRAFT] Armistice and Ceasefire Standards

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell looks around at the empty debate chambers, which were so quiet, even his breathing could be heard echoing. "Ok," he said to the empty room, "so its been dead in these halls. Literally, yesterday I found a cobweb so thick, I literally tripped over it, and I'm pretty sure the goldfish that belong to the ambassador in the office across the hall is dead, though maybe its her assistant. A smell worse then Chuckie has been wafting out of there. It wouldn't be so bad if I wasn't effectively banished to this place, so while the rest of you can travel home for business and pleasure, I'm stuck here in the International Sensory Deprivation Chambers. So, you can consider this my attempt at some feeble resuscitation. Maybe. Whatever. Here:"

Armistice and Ceasefire Standards
International Security | Mild

---

Recognizing armed conflict has a variety of nuance;

Desiring to enforce traditional customs of peacekeeping and negotiations with World Assembly authority, and;

Seeking to provide rules of fair conduct for such, that aggrieved parties might find recourse;

Hereby,

1. Defines an armistice as an agreement for the formal cessation of hostilities between armed parties, conditionally or unconditionally, for the purpose of negotiating a lasting peace, that does not necessarily require a halt in armed conflict in the interim;

2. Defines a ceasefire as an agreement between armed parties for the immediate and temporary cessation of hostilities;

3. Strongly encourages member states to agree to a ceasefire for the duration of armistice negotiations;

4. Permits member states to resume hostilities during a ceasefire agreement if:

a. There is no fixed duration of the ceasefire, or the fixed duration expires, provided prior notification to the relevant representative of the opposing force is made, or;

b. The ceasefire agreement is declared void due to an opposing party’s violation of the terms, provided prior notification to the relevant representative of the opposing force is made;

5. Binds member states to not violate a ceasefire agreement without an aforementioned legitimate provision;

6. Requires member states negotiate in good faith with their counterpart(s) during an armistice agreement;

7. Mandates member states ensure that representatives who are directly or indirectly participating in armistice or ceasefire negotiations be protected from unlawful injury, assault, or detainment for the duration of the negotiation;

8. Declares that, should the negotiations fail and hostilities recommence, the aforementioned representatives shall have their protections outlined in Clause 7 extended and safe passage granted until such time as they are returned to safely to their territory such that they are not in immediate danger from the conflict.;

9. Specifies that the protections and provisions outlined in Clause 6, 7, and 8 may be considered void if clear evidence that an involved party has violated the above provisions comes to light;

10. Further specifies that violation of any of the above clauses without the mitigating circumstances of Clauses 4 or 9 shall be considered a war crime by member states, and violators shall be prosecuted accordingly.

11. Establishes the International Conflict Arbitration Board (ICAB), which shall, upon request, supply impartial arbitrators and locate neutral meeting locations open for all involved parties to access, and shall issue binding arbitrations, with an appeals process, for all participants involved in the arbitration process.

12. Member states shall extend the protections outlined in Clauses 6 and 7 to ICAB arbitrators and staff operating in the capacity of their duties at all times.

The sound of fluttering paper can be heard bouncing off of desks and podiums as Bell places a copy up at the podium in the center of the ridiculously quiet room.

"That's an impressive echo. ECHO!"

ECHO! ECHO! ECHO!

"Hehe."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"so its been dead in these halls.

OOC: No kidding. Can you imagine the outrage if Gameplay were this quiet? I'm not sure what it's going to take for people to acknowledge the ill health of the WA game. Oh, right - caring even one iota. Nevermind.

7. Mandates member states ensure that representatives who are directly or indirectly participating in armistice or ceasefire negotiations be protected from unlawful injury, assault, or detainment for the duration of the negotiation;

"This, presumably, is what justifies the category, as it would require some (mild) police/military spending. Still, it seems a shame. The Global Disarmament category can't even be used for a proposal about armistices and ceasefires?

"As for the ICAB, I think you need to expand on the process a bit. Simply providing impartial arbitrators doesn't do much if that arbitration isn't binding."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

7. Mandates member states ensure that representatives who are directly or indirectly participating in armistice or ceasefire negotiations be protected from unlawful injury, assault, or detainment for the duration of the negotiation;

"This, presumably, is what justifies the category, as it would require some (mild) police/military spending. Still, it seems a shame. The Global Disarmament category can't even be used for a proposal about armistices and ceasefires?

Bell jumped about a mile in the air at the sound of a voice.
"HOLYGODDAMSHIT!!! You snuck up on me, Daisy...er...yes, I had it as GD literally seconds before I posted it. That clause made me pause. That, and I'll get nowhere in the debate if all I get is bellyaching about disliking the category effects. I was hoping to get a few opinions as to which way to jump, so to speak."

"As for the ICAB, I think you need to expand on the process a bit. Simply providing impartial arbitrators doesn't do much if that arbitration isn't binding."

"Can you just imagine the public reaction to making them arbitrary, even if members have to request that binding decision in the first place? Talk about a lynching. At any rate, both points are definitely worth considering, if the rest of our colleagues end up trickling in."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Can you just imagine the public reaction to making them arbitrary, even if members have to request that binding decision in the first place?"

"The kind of people who will take issue with that will vote against the proposal anyway. I cannot think of a single piece of legislation that has ever been improved by trying to cater to the orcs.

"That said, I will indeed wait for our esteemed confreres to wake from their slumber. Though, you should know you only need to say the magic word..."

Daisy cups her hands.

"ABORTIONNNNNN...!"

Ominous rumblings sound from the back of the chamber as the NatSov lobby wakes up to force everyone to legalise abortion. In the interests of national sovereignty. Apparently.

[Defwa]

Having detected one of its activation words from down the hall, the Defwaen telepresence drone wirrs to life and hovers in with "stand by" displayed on its screen.

Eventually, Angela appears without a proper shirt on (luckily the camera focuses from the shoulders up), looking frantic.
"Oh, it's just you two. Let's see..." she drives the drone to the proposal papers and runs its pages through a scanner below her screen.

"This looks like it will be better recieved than Surrender Protocol. Definitely not GD, though. At no point is there a decrease in spending. Just a couple nitpicks, I'm not a fan of the references. Hopefully use of those notes can be cut down on. The concept of unlawful in clause 7 can be dangerous. Unlawful to who? An enemy nation can easily declare being from the other team is enough for the death penalty. I should look at diplomatic protections before really being able to to into that though.
"Notifying the relevent representative can be an issue if a nation intentionally hides its representative.
"Clauses 9 and 11 reference parties but that can be said to mean anyone on the planet. Considering this resolution is aiming to cut down on nations using peace as a guise to destroy, such technical wrangling should be expected."

[Chester Pearson]

I agree with Daisy. This will need to be GD, or it defeats the point. Plus someone will challenge this as IS.

7. Mandates member states ensure that representatives who are directly or indirectly participating in armistice or ceasefire negotiations be protected from unlawful injury, assault, or detainment for the duration of the negotiation;

Is the only clause that is making this IS, and somehow I doubt it will be enough. You can try, but someone will challenge it.

On the flip side, this looks great to me. Expect the old Fleet Marshal to scream NatSov until we are all deaf on this though....

[Imperium Anglorum]

For His Excellency, Ambassador Bell, Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples,

Your Excellency, ignoring for a moment, the categorisation of the bill, I find this to be simply nothing more than an extension of already pre-existing diplomatic immunity regulations with no major alterations to current frameworks except their codification.

Ceasefires are by nature, voluntary, and militaries do not stand down when they are in effect. They simply refrain from aggressive action. Taking an example from history, the armistice signed between the Entente powers and Germany on 11 November 1918 could have easily been followed by either side immediately retaking the initiative. However, the reason they signed an armistice was because both sides were tired of fighting. That is why armistices happen. The proposal of an armistice, Sir, is not necessarily automatically accepted.

His Grace, Duke Cyril must relay to His Excellency, Ambassador Bell, that the Foreign Office believes that the only sections which it could support are the population of a new board or council which builds onto the already existing systems for international justice instead of an entirely new organisation which would further increase administrative overhead. In that, the Foreign Secretary has instructed its Permanent Representative to implore yours truley to move towards conflict resolution instead of restrictive legislation against the structures of peace development.

Yours, via diplomatic parcel,

<<scribbled signature>>
Propraetor Anglorum

[Tinfect]

Ambassador Markhov, hearing the sound echoing from within the otherwise empty chamber, wakes from a rather fine rest.
"Eh? A new proposal?"
Hopping the seats in front of him, and snatching the proposal from the central podium. "Lets see what you got Ambassador... Bell, was it?"

...
11. Establishes the International Conflict Arbitration Board (ICAB), which shall, upon request, supply impartial arbitrators and locate neutral meeting locations open for all parties to access.
...

"Why... would anyone ever request the use of this Arbitration Board? Could you perhaps further explain what exactly the purpose of this ICAB is?"

[Separatist Peoples]

For His Excellency, Ambassador Bell, Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples,

Your Excellency, ignoring for a moment, the categorisation of the bill, I find this to be simply nothing more than an extension of already pre-existing diplomatic immunity regulations with no major alterations to current frameworks except their codification.

Ceasefires are by nature, voluntary, and militaries do not stand down when they are in effect. They simply refrain from aggressive action. Taking an example from history, the armistice signed between the Entente powers and Germany on 11 November 1918 could have easily been followed by either side immediately retaking the initiative. However, the reason they signed an armistice was because both sides were tired of fighting. That is why armistices happen. The proposal of an armistice, Sir, is not necessarily automatically accepted.

His Grace, Duke Cyril must relay to His Excellency, Ambassador Bell, that the Foreign Office believes that the only sections which it could support are the population of a new board or council which builds onto the already existing systems for international justice instead of an entirely new organisation which would further increase administrative overhead. In that, the Foreign Secretary has instructed its Permanent Representative to implore yours truley to move towards conflict resolution instead of restrictive legislation against the structures of peace development.

Yours, via diplomatic parcel,

<<scribbled signature>>
Propaetor Anglorum

“Ambassador Parson, may I first say welcome to the General Assembly. Secondly, upon first glance, it may, indeed, seem that the proposal is only reinforcing existing framework, but if you look carefully:

1. Binds member states to not violate a ceasefire agreement without an aforementioned legitimate provision;

2. Requires member states negotiate in good faith with their counterpart(s) during an armistice agreement;

“These clauses not only reinforce the existing framework, they make illegal the use of duplicitous or perfidious attempts to manipulate a truce or ceasefire. As a result, member states cannot perfidiously use the conditions of truces and ceasefire to further their own military ends.

“I agree, this does not, in itself, solve major problems beyond allowing legal force to back the requirements already backed by military retribution, but it is important to note that, with the introduction of WA law on the topic, nations will, hopefully, become more trusting of truces and ceasefires, making them less likely to expect perfidy and more likely to call them for discussions of peace. It is much in the same vein as my Rules of Surrender, where, by codifying a specific process, faith in that process is strengthened, suspicion reduced, and peace given a greater chance to endure.

“Additionally, the Diplomat Protection Act only protects those politicians sent to the World Assembly, if my memory serves correctly. All of this indirect effect is exactly why this is classified as Mild.”

Ambassador Markhov, hearing the sound echoing from within the otherwise empty chamber, wakes from a rather fine rest.
"Eh? A new proposal?"
Hopping the seats in front of him, and snatching the proposal from the central podium. "Lets see what you got Ambassador... Bell, was it?"

...
11. Establishes the International Conflict Arbitration Board (ICAB), which shall, upon request, supply impartial arbitrators and locate neutral meeting locations open for all parties to access.
...

"Why... would anyone ever request the use of this Arbitration Board? Could you perhaps further explain what exactly the purpose of this ICAB is?"

“Ambassador Markhov, sir, I expect that those nations locked in long, bloody conflicts that wish to see it end, have not the military force to achieve a decisive victory, and cannot trust their enemy’s word or intentions would be very happy to have an impartial negotiator available. It is the obstinacy brought on by long hatred and bloody battles that this seeks to circumvent, not the lightning strikes of those nations with a clear advantage or disadvantage. Impartial negotiators lend credibility to any attempt at armistice and conditional settlement. Even if the ICAB is used only once, it has been worth the efforts to install it.”

I agree with Daisy. This will need to be GD, or it defeats the point. Plus someone will challenge this as IS.

7. Mandates member states ensure that representatives who are directly or indirectly participating in armistice or ceasefire negotiations be protected from unlawful injury, assault, or detainment for the duration of the negotiation;

Is the only clause that is making this IS, and somehow I doubt it will be enough. You can try, but someone will challenge it.

On the flip side, this looks great to me. Expect the old Fleet Marshal to scream NatSov until we are all deaf on this though....

“Chester, I do agree that the spirit of this is Global Disarmament. Wholeheartedly. This was written as such, even. It is the clauses protecting representatives that make this more International Security-esque. I’m wondering how, if this doesn’t actually cause a decrease in spending, it will survive as a GD proposal, because both you and Daisy are quite correct that this should be a GD law.”

Having detected one of its activation words from down the hall, the Defwaen telepresence drone wirrs to life and hovers in with "stand by" displayed on its screen.

Eventually, Angela appears without a proper shirt on (luckily the camera focuses from the shoulders up), looking frantic.
"Oh, it's just you two. Let's see..." she drives the drone to the proposal papers and runs its pages through a scanner below her screen.

"This looks like it will be better recieved than Surrender Protocol. Definitely not GD, though. At no point is there a decrease in spending. Just a couple nitpicks, I'm not a fan of the references. Hopefully use of those notes can be cut down on. The concept of unlawful in clause 7 can be dangerous. Unlawful to who? An enemy nation can easily declare being from the other team is enough for the death penalty. I should look at diplomatic protections before really being able to to into that though.
"Notifying the relevent representative can be an issue if a nation intentionally hides its representative.
"Clauses 9 and 11 reference parties but that can be said to mean anyone on the planet. Considering this resolution is aiming to cut down on nations using peace as a guise to destroy, such technical wrangling should be expected."

“Well that’s a fine hello to friends, Angela! Did I interrupt something fun? As for the determination of “unlawful”, there are other GA proposals to consider, such as CoCR, which should, hopefully, prevent silly nonsense such as making existing under a separate nationality illegal.
“However, I see your point about the language in reference to “parties”. I’ll try to clean that up a bit. Probably the inclusion of the term “involved”, I should think. Your concern about hiding representatives, however, is a bit misplaced. Simply broadcasting one’s intention to end a ceasefire, be it through a megaphone at the front lines, or through a phone call to an embassy, would be enough to satisfy this requirement.”
OOC: Which is, generally, how it has been interpreted in Real Life. I suppose it is expected of developed countries to have a definite system in place for dealing with their enemies, and not to go to war with an entirely unknown entity with absolutely no means of higher communication then shouting from trench to trench.

[Greater Louisistan]

Vivien Gardner, Executive Intern to the Delegation from Greater Louisistan looks quite stressed as she takes the podium after desperately searching the room for one of her Ambassadors.

"Our apologies, Ambassador Bell. As our WA seat has recently been transferred from Louisistan to the Federation of Greater Louisistan, we are naturally quite busy. For the moment the representatives from Louisistan will continue to represent us, until the colleagues from the other members of the Federation arrive. Unfortunately both Ambassador Schneider and Associate Ambassador Barber have already vanished into their Christmas vacations and Deputy Ambassador Schulz is stuck filing the necessary papers regarding the WA transition.

As for your proposal, our legislative and military advisors have given it a precursory glance and are mostly satisfied. The conditions seem to be reasonable. However, we do believe we have spotted one small problem:

8. Declares that, should the negotiations fail and hostilities recommence, the aforementioned representatives shall have their protections outlined in Clause 7 extended and safe passage granted until such time as they are returned safely to their own territory;

In times of war, the definition of "their own territory" is likely to be under dispute. While one side may claim all the territory it has gained during the conflict as its territory, the opposing side might beg to differ. A particularly nasty nation might then give into the opposing side's view and declare that the opposing representatives have already reached their own territory, although still being in occupied territory. And then: Bang.
Or are we overlooking any international legislation which might prevent such a travesty?

As for the discussion of binding arbitration: If you're desperate enough to involve WA gnomes in your ceasefire agreement, you might as well bow down to their terms. We say make the results of the arbitration binding. As long as the arbitration itself isn't mandatory, that provision would be reasonable."

Her phone rings. "Yes Sir, right away, Sir. Form d34db33f? I will get it ASAP, Sir."

"Excuse me Ambassadors, I have to run down to Office of Building Management real quick."

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Binds member states to not violate a ceasefire agreement without an aforementioned legitimate provision;

2. Requires member states negotiate in good faith with their counterpart(s) during an armistice agreement;

“These clauses not only reinforce the existing framework, they make illegal the use of duplicitous or perfidious attempts to manipulate a truce or ceasefire. As a result, member states cannot perfidiously use the conditions of truces and ceasefire to further their own military ends.

'Your Excellency, my apologies on our delay in entering this discussion. I was required at home for meetings with the Foreign Office on matters of my tenure. Again, apologies'. Ambassador Parsons, arriving in his toga due to Foreign Office regulations, took his seat and turned on his microphone.

'Your Excellency, the Foreign Office does not believe that the legislation of this is effective in any form. Exempli gratia, the Kellogg-Briand Pact shortly before the Second World War, where the nations of the world decided to outlaw offensive war. It did not work, and I am in agreement with the intellectuals at home in that such a pact will do nothing except rattle a sabre, a sabre made of wood, not metal.'

'Furthermore, Your Excellency, it is unlikely that a truce can be abused, as it would be absurd for a military to stand down during its duration. Peace treaties allow militaries to stand down — armistices and truces do not, and hence, the ability for a military to, as you say, "manipulate a truce or ceasefire", have been found by our War Office to be minimal'. Sitting down, the Ambassador reaches for a drink.

[Separatist Peoples]

'Your Excellency, my apologies on our delay in entering this discussion. I was required at home for meetings with the Foreign Office on matters of my tenure. Again, apologies'. Ambassador Parsons, arriving in his toga due to Foreign Office regulations, took his seat and turned on his microphone.

'Your Excellency, the Foreign Office does not believe that the legislation of this is effective in any form. Exempli gratia, the Kellogg-Briand Pact shortly before the Second World War, where the nations of the world decided to outlaw offensive war. It did not work, and I am in agreement with the intellectuals at home in that such a pact will do nothing except rattle a sabre, a sabre made of wood, not metal.'

'Furthermore, Your Excellency, it is unlikely that a truce can be abused, as it would be absurd for a military to stand down during its duration. Peace treaties allow militaries to stand down — armistices and truces do not, and hence, the ability for a military to, as you say, "manipulate a truce or ceasefire", have been found by our War Office to be minimal'. Sitting down, the Ambassador reaches for a drink.

"Ambassador, nations cannot simply ignore WA law. Your comparison to whatever agreement before one of the numerous world wars that occur in the Multiverse was, if I recall the story behind that reality simulator Real Life^(TM), is not accurate, as WA members are bound comply, wherein the players of the game lacked similar oversight and control over domestic laws by their organizations. Indeed, armies of bureaucratic gnomes alter national laws overnight upon passage.

"If you are saying what I think you are saying, the same argument can be made for every single law passed by this august assembly since it's conception: What is the point? Nations wont bother obeying! That is an entirely unproductive position to take.

"However, your assertions by the War Office of your nation deserve particular note. If the strategic eggheads of your office truly believe that a military force can somehow not gain tactical or strategic advantage over an enemy by perfidious means, then your strategic command is in desperate need of retiring and replacing, and should review the game guide to Real Life^(TM). Specifically, they should reread the section on the Operation Barbarossa level.

"Codifying the customs of war, so as to ensure that there is a means by which to pursue and punish violators, is the only way the World Assembly has to protect civilians effectively. If this is a goal you oppose, you are welcome to vote against."

[Bears Armed]

Exempli gratia, the Kellogg-Briand Pact shortly before the Second World War, where the nations of the world decided to outlaw offensive war. It did not work

OOC: Although it did mean that the Axis powers' leaderships could subsequently be prosecuted in international courts after WW2 for their roles in organizing & conducting offensive war...

[Normlpeople]

Clover approached the podium, her usual cloak replaced by military dress. "Hey, this hiatus hasn't been that bad. I can actually fulfill my military duty, get it out of the way, and not actually have to appoint a replacement! You'd be surprised, after General Cloudspear did his month, how many have spoken to him and now run off at the very mention of taking this job, even temporarily. Anyway...

The one thing that stuck out to me was clause 11. Could we not eliminate a useless board by simply urging 3rd party member states, agreed upon by both parties, to provide neutral territory/safe locations for the negotiations? They could even act as arbitrators, and most would gladly undertake such responsibility. I guess a bureaucracy would be necessary if such a state could not be found, but I am certain that would not be the case..."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Ambassador, nations cannot simply ignore WA law. Your comparison to whatever agreement before one of the numerous world wars that occur in the Multiverse was, if I recall the story behind that reality simulator Real Life^(TM), is not accurate, as WA members are bound comply, wherein the players of the game lacked similar oversight and control over domestic laws by their organizations. Indeed, armies of bureaucratic gnomes alter national laws overnight upon passage.

"If you are saying what I think you are saying, the same argument can be made for every single law passed by this august assembly since it's conception: What is the point? Nations wont bother obeying! That is an entirely unproductive position to take.

"However, your assertions by the War Office of your nation deserve particular note. If the strategic eggheads of your office truly believe that a military force can somehow not gain tactical or strategic advantage over an enemy by perfidious means, then your strategic command is in desperate need of retiring and replacing, and should review the game guide to Real Life^(TM). Specifically, they should reread the section on the Operation Barbarossa level.

"Codifying the customs of war, so as to ensure that there is a means by which to pursue and punish violators, is the only way the World Assembly has to protect civilians effectively. If this is a goal you oppose, you are welcome to vote against."

'Ambassador, our War Office refuses to believe that on a comparative basis, between two countries with imperfect information, with rational decision-making, there cannot be a situation in which a country gains a massive advantage during a conflict when adjusted for economic and military factors. This means that wars are not decided on the battlefield, but in the manpower and the manufacturing capacity of a nation.'

'This delegation, along with the support of the Foreign Office, believes that the protection of civilian life is a worthy goal. We are offended at your insinuation that this nation does not support such a goal. Furthermore, this bill discusses the prohibition of the abuse of ceasefires, which as but an indirect consequence on civilian populations and safety. However, with the clarifications provided in more recent debates, we have no objection to this bill.'

[Separatist Peoples]

'Ambassador, our War Office refuses to believe that on a comparative basis, between two countries with imperfect information, with rational decision-making, there cannot be a situation in which a country gains a massive advantage during a conflict when adjusted for economic and military factors. This means that wars are not decided on the battlefield, but in the manpower and the manufacturing capacity of a nation.'

'This delegation, along with the support of the Foreign Office, believes that the protection of civilian life is a worthy goal. We are offended at your insinuation that this nation does not support such a goal. Furthermore, this bill discusses the prohibition of the abuse of ceasefires, which as but an indirect consequence on civilian populations and safety. However, with the clarifications provided in more recent debates, we have no objection to this bill.'

"Ambassador, forgive me. I'm used to defending these against the Orcs of the Assembly, who thump their black armor and scream about how war should be entirely unregulated, as those captured combatants clearly deserve no mercy, and civilians deserve to be gang-raped and enslaved when their side loses wars.

"The scope of this is supposed to include both those theater-wide ceasefires as well as those more localized, which operates on a smaller scale of resource requirements and the like. There is, regrettably, not much difference in procedure or language to differentiate between armistices that are like the event of, perhaps, the conclusion of World War One in that reality simulator Real Life^(TM) or of the Korean Conflict and that which existed between operational units along the line in levels such as the American Civil War, for example, or perhaps as can be seen during the first Christmas of the First World War. All of these are excellent examples of events simulated by the game with vastly differing scopes of effect, yet essentially the same procedure and goal.

"I hope that realizing the intended scope of the proposal, to include those smaller, lesser ceasefires that still have a genuine impact on the well being of both soldiers and civilians, adjusts your opinion on the effectiveness of this proposal. We're both aware of the extraneous factors that are a part of modern conflict, clearly, but, as sweeping measures have failed in this body, it seems that baby steps are our best option to close the gap in law regarding customs of war."

"Oh, and edits have been made for general perusal. I addressed Angela Landfree's concerns (a fine ambassador and woman, she will be missed!), changed the Category to GD, though I will need to harass the Secretariat on that topic, and tightened up the language Clause 8 to prevent the situation where diplomats are safely returned to the No Mans Land between actively fighting lines."

[Greater Louisistan]

and tightened up the language Clause 8 to prevent the situation where diplomats are safely returned to the No Mans Land between actively fighting lines."

From: schulz@greater-louisistan.ga.wa
To: bell@seperatist-peoples.ga.wa
Subject: Armistice and Ceasefire Standards

---

Ambassador Bell,

your changes to the draft have been noticed and are much appreciated. Our delegation can now offer full support of your proposal. Please excuse my absence from the chamber, as I am still busy filing those damn forms.

Yours,
Schulz, Dy. Ambassador

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I hope that realizing the intended scope of the proposal, to include those smaller, lesser ceasefires that still have a genuine impact on the well being of both soldiers and civilians, adjusts your opinion on the effectiveness of this proposal. We're both aware of the extraneous factors that are a part of modern conflict, clearly, but, as sweeping measures have failed in this body, it seems that baby steps are our best option to close the gap in law regarding customs of war."

"Oh, and edits have been made for general perusal. I addressed Angela Landfree's concerns (a fine ambassador and woman, she will be missed!), changed the Category to GD, though I will need to harass the Secretariat on that topic, and tightened up the language Clause 8 to prevent the situation where diplomats are safely returned to the No Mans Land between actively fighting lines."

Telegram
To His Excellency, Ambassador Bell
From His Excellency, Ambassador Parsons, Proconsul Anglorum

---

AMBASSADOR stop. HAVE HEARD FROM HOME stop. PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN OFFICE BELIEVES IS SIMPLY RESTATEMENT OF PREEXISTING NORMS stop. THOUGH WAR OFFICE BELIEVES IS LIKELY UNHELPFUL IN STOPPING MANIPULATION OF ARMISTICES stop. WILL SUPPORT stop.

---

Cost of £2 6s 2d

[The Dark Star Republic]

1. Defines an armistice as an agreement for the formal cessation of hostilities between armed parties, conditionally or unconditionally, for the purpose of negotiating a lasting peace, that does not necessarily require a halt in armed conflict in the interim;

2. Defines a ceasefire as an agreement between armed parties for the immediate and temporary cessation of hostilities;

3. Strongly encourages member states to agree to a ceasefire for the duration of armistice negotiations;

"What's confusing me in these definitions is the mixing of the terms 'cessation of hostilities' and 'halt in armed conflict'.

5. Binds member states to not violate a ceasefire agreement without an aforementioned legitimate provision;

"Which is nice, but, there's no actual requirement that states enter a ceasefire in the first place. Which surely makes this of very limited value because states intending to violate a ceasefire never have to enter into one in the first place.

7. Mandates member states ensure that representatives who are directly or indirectly participating in armistice or ceasefire negotiations be protected from unlawful injury, assault, or detainment for the duration of the negotiation;

"Hmm. I'm not necessarily sure we would agree to this. If a delegate we consider culpable for war crimes is indirectly participating in negotiations, then our trying to arrest them might be considered 'unlawful' by the state against whom we're fighting a war because they don't recognise our territorial claims. I understand the need to protect negotiators, but these people do not necessarily have immunity.

"The other aspect of this, which is not specific to this draft of course, is that this all seems to be based on a premise of member states fighting international conflicts against one another. Much conflict is not fought between recognised member states: civil wars, rebellions, conflicts involving popular fronts or private forces."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

"What's confusing me in these definitions is the mixing of the terms 'cessation of hostilities' and 'halt in armed conflict'.

"Noted for revisions."

"Which is nice, but, there's no actual requirement that states enter a ceasefire in the first place. Which surely makes this of very limited value because states intending to violate a ceasefire never have to enter into one in the first place.

"I certainly cannot force members to declare a ceasefire, though I wish I could. The goal of this resolution is to ensure that, should a ceasefire be called, it will be respected by member states, in part because of our dedication to a higher moral standard, and in part because even a moment of peace is valuable. After all, if World Assembly members cannot be trusted to keep their word in a ceasefire agreement, nations will be disinclined to attempt to make peace, as they will mistrust their opponent. It is a very small issue, I know, but an important step, I feel, to bettering the chances of peace.

"Besides, unless codified, violators cannot be brought to justice for a breech of the customs of war."

"Hmm. I'm not necessarily sure we would agree to this. If a delegate we consider culpable for war crimes is indirectly participating in negotiations, then our trying to arrest them might be considered 'unlawful' by the state against whom we're fighting a war because they don't recognise our territorial claims. I understand the need to protect negotiators, but these people do not necessarily have immunity.

"I feel that the time for arresting and trying war criminals is best saved for after a measure of peace has been secured, not in the middle of a conflict. negotiators would never agree to travel somewhere where they can be arrested at any time for what, from their perspective, could be spurious accusations. As great an advocate as I may be for justice for such crimes, I do believe that, sometimes, patience is the better choice in a delicate situation."

"The other aspect of this, which is not specific to this draft of course, is that this all seems to be based on a premise of member states fighting international conflicts against one another. Much conflict is not fought between recognised member states: civil wars, rebellions, conflicts involving popular fronts or private forces."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

"Yep. This was written so that member states can extend the same behavior to nonmember states, and still have recourse to respond in kind if nonmembers prove duplicitous, but I see no reason why members should treat nonmember states with any less humanity then we treat our own. Differentiating between us and them is helpful in trade and legalities, but in life and death, citizens of nonmembers as every bit as valuable as members. I don't say this for you so much, Daisy, as for some of our more radical anti-nonmember elements in the chambers."