Advertisement
by Ainocra » Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:53 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:28 am
Ainocra wrote:I suggest changing
murder, deprivation of basic necessities, or deliberate starvation,
to
mass murder, deprivation of basic necessities, or deliberate starvation,
crimes against humanity, perpetrated against a people
by Ainocra » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:12 pm
by Petejackson1996 » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:07 pm
by Imperializt Russia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:17 pm
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:24 pm
Petejackson1996 wrote:No forced sterilisation, forced abortion: I disagree with the former as some nations may with to deal with some criminals in that way,
and the latter because some countries, mine included, would force abortion in the case of incest or some other equally heinous things.
No forced deportation, expulsion, or resettlement: so I'm not allowed to expel all the evil people in the country i just took over, but i cant kill them either? I'd rather not have a bunch of SS officers and ex-war criminals walking around my cities.
No forced disappearance: Well, i'd rather not announce to the whole terrorist group that i've just captured their leader and am going to execute him. I'd rather just silently get it done.
No deliberate targeting of civilians: Does this include factories/plants in warfare, or just schools and such?
No summary execution: Well, my country executes terrorists, traitors, and killers on the spot, no questions asked. Am i REQUIRED to give a trial when its a known?
No perfidy: So, no spying?
Dont get me wrong, i may have misread it and am just being an idiot, but i honestly am asking why these things were chosen.
I personally would be a fan of most of these things, but perhaps it would be acceptable to do some of these with permission from the WA or SC?
If there's a terrorist cell in my capital, I will shoot every single one, pistol to head execution and public hangings. If i conquer a country, and there are people who did things that were not war crimes, but really hurt my people, i'd rather not jail them. Id like to just kill them.
And if someone invokes my wrath, can i really not exile them?
by The Two Jerseys » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:46 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:52 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Why is violation of neutrality even on this list?
by The Two Jerseys » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:00 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:10 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Are you seriously expecting us to accept that a belligerent warship staying in a neutral harbor for 24 hours and one minute is a war crime?
by The Two Jerseys » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:22 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:Are you seriously expecting us to accept that a belligerent warship staying in a neutral harbor for 24 hours and one minute is a war crime?
"I'm not sure what '24 hours' is supposed to be referencing?
"That said, Rights of Neutral States outlines some specific conditions under which providing safe harbour to belligerents is permitted. Otherwise, it's a violation of neutrality. You seem to have avoided answering the question. Respecting neutrality is a law of war. Violating neutrality is a crime against that law. Violations of neutrality are considered to be war crimes. Why would they not be considered war crimes?"
~ Ms. Chinmusic
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:33 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Invading Belgium in the first place is a violation of neutrality.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:07 pm
1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;
2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion in circumstances under Section 1;
3. MANDATES that such abortions may only be carried out with the informed consent of the patient without coercion: if the patient is incapacitated and unable to make their wishes known, the patient's legal next-of-kin may make the decision on their behalf;
by The Two Jerseys » Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:29 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:Invading Belgium in the first place is a violation of neutrality.
"Which was a war crime.
"In the entire time we've been associated with this Assembly, we can't remember seeing your delegation conjure up so much as a single useful comment on anyone's draft. All you have ever offered is dismissive, snippy snark. Now's your opportunity, Ambassador Ewing: you have the floor, and there's been little other comment on this proposal's text. Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"
~ Ms. Chinmusic, waiting in fervent hope
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:16 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Which was a war crime.
"In the entire time we've been associated with this Assembly, we can't remember seeing your delegation conjure up so much as a single useful comment on anyone's draft. All you have ever offered is dismissive, snippy snark. Now's your opportunity, Ambassador Ewing: you have the floor, and there's been little other comment on this proposal's text. Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"
~ Ms. Chinmusic, waiting in fervent hope
So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:24 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"
So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:29 pm
by Imperializt Russia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:56 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Which was a war crime.
"In the entire time we've been associated with this Assembly, we can't remember seeing your delegation conjure up so much as a single useful comment on anyone's draft. All you have ever offered is dismissive, snippy snark. Now's your opportunity, Ambassador Ewing: you have the floor, and there's been little other comment on this proposal's text. Do you think you can summon up all that wit and wisdom you are so willing to pummel every new contributor to these halls over the head with and make a proposed clarification of the language? Or perhaps demonstrate that you can offer more than bile and scorn, and instead a reasoned argument as to why breaking the rules of war shouldn't be considered a war crime?"
~ Ms. Chinmusic, waiting in fervent hope
So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Bananaistan » Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:23 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Do you think we should include forced religious conversion as a crime against humanity?"
~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:03 am
Bananaistan wrote:We would not be opposed in principle but we would suggest that the wording would need to be very carefully drafted (IE we wouldn't want to see our mandatory scientific education for all children, provided by the state, regarding the nature of life and the universe to suddenly become a crime against humanity. And just to be clear, we are in full compliance with all WA resolutions regarding religious freedom, but we have had a policy of unofficial state atheism for many decades now and we have found that the education referred to has seen the numbers of people claiming to be religious drop in every census since its inception and is much more effective in reducing the influence of religion than our pre-WA membership policies which were rather more forceful under some of our more hardline communist governments..)
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:40 am
Sanctaria wrote:Ugh, Moral Decency. Which is a pity because I suppose in principle I agree with the aim.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:46 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC follows:Mousebumples wrote:Totally-not-a-ruling-in-any-way-shape-or-form, buuuuuut ... Why Moral Decency? It seems to me that removing any possible statute of limitations would boost police budgets (i.e. International Security) more than it would restrict civil freedoms. From all appearances, this is the early stages of drafting, so things may be changed in the text itself, or I may have overlooked something here in my quick read-through on the text. However, genuine question: why Moral Decency?
I tried to build the argument in the preamble:Understanding that states have historically employed statutory limitations on the prosecution of crimes so as to prevent unjust persecution of defendants long after a reasonable period has elapsed for bringing a prosecution,
The purpose of statutes of limitation is to protect defendants from frivolous or unjust persecution against which they would be unable to defend themselves. WA law protecting defendants - the various Fair Trial resolutions, the many, many Habeas Corpus proposals, Preventing Multiple Trials, and others - have always gone in Human Rights. Protecting defendants is clearly something the WA considers to be a civil freedom. So the opposite of that - removing a protection for defendants, opening them up to charges even if their crime is decades old - is restricting a civil freedom, and hence Moral Decency. Mild because (one would hope) this would only apply to a very narrow class of criminals.
by Bears Armed Mission » Sat Feb 14, 2015 3:05 am
The Two Jerseys wrote:So Private Bob getting lost in the dark and stumbling across the border into neutral Ruritania is a war crime? Because he is violating their neutrality after all.
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat Feb 14, 2015 5:40 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC follows:
I tried to build the argument in the preamble:
The purpose of statutes of limitation is to protect defendants from frivolous or unjust persecution against which they would be unable to defend themselves. WA law protecting defendants - the various Fair Trial resolutions, the many, many Habeas Corpus proposals, Preventing Multiple Trials, and others - have always gone in Human Rights. Protecting defendants is clearly something the WA considers to be a civil freedom. So the opposite of that - removing a protection for defendants, opening them up to charges even if their crime is decades old - is restricting a civil freedom, and hence Moral Decency. Mild because (one would hope) this would only apply to a very narrow class of criminals.
Now that I think about it, would Political Stability be a better choice? Broadening a state's authority to prosecute could be seen as a limitation of political freedoms, and it is definitely being undertaken "in the interest of law and order."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: UNIOS
Advertisement