[IDEA] Perpetuity of Heinous Crimes

[Burleson 2]

I suggest that you add a clause stating that this resolution doesn't ban use of the death penalty.

[Old Hope]

I suggest that you add a clause stating that this resolution doesn't ban use of the death penalty.

Absolutely not necessary. We already have the Convention on Execution, and nothing here mandates banning the death penalty(which would be illegal for contradiction).

[Wolfenia]

“forced deportation, expulsion, or resettlement,”

Does that include evictions from rented living spaces?

[Imperializt Russia]

“forced deportation, expulsion, or resettlement,”

Does that include evictions from rented living spaces?

It would be dependent on the circumstances.

Letting agent decides he wants to put that property back on the market? Probably not.
The state, supported by its forces, kicks out a certain ethnicity/cultural group/fandom/w/e, Warsaw-style, steals their shit and gives it to the favoured ethnicity/cultural group/fandom/w/e?
Of course it does.

[The Dark Star Republic]

“forced deportation, expulsion, or resettlement,”

Does that include evictions from rented living spaces?

It would be dependent on the circumstances.

Letting agent decides he wants to put that property back on the market? Probably not.
The state, supported by its forces, kicks out a certain ethnicity/cultural group/fandom/w/e, Warsaw-style, steals their shit and gives it to the favoured ethnicity/cultural group/fandom/w/e?
Of course it does.

"Exactly this. In each case, it's a crime against humanity only where it's "perpetrated against a people with the aim of extermination, dispossession, collective punishment, denial of fundamental rights and freedoms, or elimination of their culture". Kicking out a tenant for not paying their rent doesn't meet those conditions. Kicking a farmer off his land because his family is from the wrong tribe does."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sanctaria]

Ugh, Moral Decency. Which is a pity because I suppose in principle I agree with the aim.

Sorry, but this is like the third proposal where I've seen someone gripe that it is under Moral Decency. Is it just because you don't like the concept of upholding morality, or is it more of a statwank thing? You don't like the hit to your personal freedoms? I mean, you suppose you like prosecuting war crimes; you just can't get over the slight (temporary) dip on one of the freedoms scales?

I'm a stat player, so no I don't like the hit to freedoms.

That said, I've written and supported SJ in the past, I just don't like the tone of Moral Decency. I probably would vote for if it came to it.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

It looks good to me. You have the support of the Franciscans!

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but there's little point to this resolution if it's not reasonably comprehensive. Are there any more crimes against humanity/war crimes people feel should be added?

"The preamble has been edited to reflect the new category."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but there's little point to this resolution if it's not reasonably comprehensive. Are there any more crimes against humanity/war crimes people feel should be added

Would you consider war rape to be a type of "reprisal[s] against civilian population," or could it deserve its own subclause? I'd argue the latter, but even if you count it as the former, stating so openly would be useful for interpretation purposes.

[Imperializt Russia]

War rape could be viewed as a "reprisal against civilians", and that justification has sometimes been used.
It should also be noted that war rape has existed as both a crime of opportunity by occupiers and aggressors, and sometimes used directly as a tool of oppression.

War rape possibly should receive its own sub-clause.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but there's little point to this resolution if it's not reasonably comprehensive. Are there any more crimes against humanity/war crimes people feel should be added

Would you consider war rape to be a type of "reprisal[s] against civilian population," or could it deserve its own subclause? I'd argue the latter, but even if you count it as the former, stating so openly would be useful for interpretation purposes.

"Sexual violence is listed under crimes against humanity, which we would argue covers systemic war rape, such as Nanking or Rwanda. But it doesn't cover individual instances, so that has been included now."

~ Ms. Chinmusic

[Separatist Peoples]

“Hostage-taking and the use of hostages as living shields. It could be considered “perfidy”, but, at the very least, hostage-taking should be a sub-clause of War Crimes, since perfidy is apparently a flexible definition here. The specification of using living shields is potentially covered by hostage-taking in general.”

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Thank you: taking of hostages was a significant oversight. We've also added human and sapient macropod shields, though we're not quite sure on the wording."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Bears Armed]

OOC; Does the current wording adequately forbid forcing civilians into [known or suspected] minefields as a way of clearing routes through those? Might not happen in RL, has probably happened already in NS...

[Imperializt Russia]

OOC; Does the current wording adequately forbid forcing civilians into [known or suspected] minefields as a way of clearing routes through those? Might not happen in RL, has probably happened already in NS...

Well, the Iranians were able to willingly persuade schoolchildren to do it by the thousand in the Iran-Iraq War.

One would be required to demonstrate forcibly doing so, however.
I'd like to believe it's superfluous to include because it's such a pointlessly inefficient and ineffective way of doing it.
It's literally better and easier to just shell it, which is still a terrible way of doing it.

I'd like to believe the following (copied from OP) can arguably cover this instance also.

• deliberate targeting of civilians,
• mistreatment of prisoners of war, military internees, or civilian internees,
• reprisals against civilian population as a means of collective punishment,
• excessive destruction not justified by military necessity,
• summary execution,
• taking of hostages,
• use of civilians or other protected persons to render areas immune from military operations

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC; Does the current wording adequately forbid forcing civilians into [known or suspected] minefields as a way of clearing routes through those? Might not happen in RL, has probably happened already in NS...

OOC: I'd be open to including that, but it's way too specific of an example for what's meant to be a general document. Would you have a suggested phrasing?

Also, I'd like to include the crimes of Unit 731, but I'm not sure how to word that. "Weapons testing against human subjects" would seem to rule out even testing that isn't unethical, but it also doesn't cover non-weapons related human experimentation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Also, I'd like to include the crimes of Unit 731, but I'm not sure how to word that. "Weapons testing against human subjects" would seem to rule out even testing that isn't unethical, but it also doesn't cover non-weapons related human experimentation.

"Non-consensual or intentionally harmful experimentation on humans [sapients/human subjects/sentient beings/etc.]" ?

[Imperializt Russia]

OOC; Does the current wording adequately forbid forcing civilians into [known or suspected] minefields as a way of clearing routes through those? Might not happen in RL, has probably happened already in NS...

OOC: I'd be open to including that, but it's way too specific of an example for what's meant to be a general document. Would you have a suggested phrasing?

Also, I'd like to include the crimes of Unit 731, but I'm not sure how to word that. "Weapons testing against human subjects" would seem to rule out even testing that isn't unethical, but it also doesn't cover non-weapons related human experimentation.

"Testing of medical procedures, weapon systems, chemical or biological agents or subjection to radiation of non-volunteers".

That is exceedingly wordy, but I have tried to cover everything possible there.

[Araraukar]

A question: why do you need to separately mention "unrestricted submarine warfare", when targeting civilians is already forbidden?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Testing of medical procedures, weapon systems, chemical or biological agents or subjection to radiation of non-volunteers".

OOC: I like "Non-volunteer": I'll play around with something involving that.

A question: why do you need to separately mention "unrestricted submarine warfare", when targeting civilians is already forbidden?

If it's unnecessary duplication it can be removed but as mentioned the aim is to be comprehensive.

[Araraukar]

A question: why do you need to separately mention "unrestricted submarine warfare", when targeting civilians is already forbidden?

If it's unnecessary duplication it can be removed but as mentioned the aim is to be comprehensive.

OOC: I was just wondering. Could just as well be "unrestricted airplane warfare" or whatever space version of it. Unrestricted submarine warfare was so condemned in real life because they sunk civilian vessels that had nothing to do with the war effort; and targeting civilians is on the list already.

IC: If you were thinking more of trading vessels rather then passenger ones, maybe that needs its own point. Though I doubt that'll get past the military wing, as blockades are a well-known war strategy.

[Imperializt Russia]

As I understood it, the objection to "unrestricted" submarine warfare was that it encouraged subs to not bother considering that some ships may be civilian shipping - in that there was not necessarily targeting of civilians, though many civilian vessels would be struck.

It's not a situation that can be as easily seen in air warfare.

[Araraukar]

As I understood it, the objection to "unrestricted" submarine warfare was that it encouraged subs to not bother considering that some ships may be civilian shipping - in that there was not necessarily targeting of civilians, though many civilian vessels would be struck.

It's not a situation that can be as easily seen in air warfare.

OOC: Not sure if your comment was OOC, but replying as that anyway; wouldn't "down all airplanes" bring down more civilian planes than military, in any given corner of the world? We've recently seen what can happen to civilian planes that fly over warzones. The purpose of "unrestricted" tends to be to completely isolate the country you're at war with, and to take full control of the space patrolled by your people. That would work for air just as it works for water. (And most likely would work on land and space too.)

I'm not trying to argue that unrestricted sub warfare shouldn't be there at all, I'm arguing it should be renamed in a more general way to apply to not just naval warfare. Would "indiscriminately attacking both civilian and military targets" (or whatever fancier way someone can think of to say that as) work?

[Two Chaoses]

"Do you think we should include forced religious conversion as a crime against humanity?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

IC: In short, yes. It is a violation of sapients' rights to freedom of conscience.

[Imperializt Russia]

As I understood it, the objection to "unrestricted" submarine warfare was that it encouraged subs to not bother considering that some ships may be civilian shipping - in that there was not necessarily targeting of civilians, though many civilian vessels would be struck.

It's not a situation that can be as easily seen in air warfare.

OOC: Not sure if your comment was OOC, but replying as that anyway; wouldn't "down all airplanes" bring down more civilian planes than military, in any given corner of the world? We've recently seen what can happen to civilian planes that fly over warzones. The purpose of "unrestricted" tends to be to completely isolate the country you're at war with, and to take full control of the space patrolled by your people. That would work for air just as it works for water. (And most likely would work on land and space too.)

I'm not trying to argue that unrestricted sub warfare shouldn't be there at all, I'm arguing it should be renamed in a more general way to apply to not just naval warfare. Would "indiscriminately attacking both civilian and military targets" (or whatever fancier way someone can think of to say that as) work?

It would be significantly easier for civil aircraft to dodge air defences and air patrol routes than it would be for civil shipping to dodge subs that can't be predicted and are difficult to track the movements of.