[PASSED] Protected Status in Wartime

[Deropia]

"Firstly, I would like to applaud Ambassador Bell on the drafting of a well written piece of legislation, and his ability to defend it. From my interpretation of the resolution it only seeks to prevent harm coming to international aid workers and the civilian population, as well as allowing neutral nations to remain just that. Neutral. I ask the delegations from Palakistan and United West Afrika, would you like either of your countries being dragged into an armed conflict you had no intention of entering because, lets say, Bigtopia, decided they where using your military's' shoulder flash in a 'False Flag' operation? Intelligence operatives normally operate outside the normal military structure, and generally do not become directly involved in combat situations, making them exempt, unless the take on an active combat role, if I am reading this correctly." Ambassador MacAlister looks around the chamber before shrugging "I could be wrong though."

[United West Afrika]

So a small identification of some sort would negate this law?

"No, a properly identifying mark would bring you into compliance with this law. It negates nothing. Such a mark would have to be: "clear and obviously recognizable way so as to prevent being mistaken for civilians, or otherwise remain immediately recognizable as combatants."."

Given that almost all of our inhabitants are a different skin color than any of our would-be invaders we will consider that the mark if necessary.

" I ask the delegations from Palakistan and United West Afrika, would you like either of your countries being dragged into an armed conflict you had no intention of entering because, lets say, Bigtopia, decided they where using your military's' shoulder flash in a 'False Flag' operation? Intelligence operatives normally operate outside the normal military structure, and generally do not become directly involved in combat situations, making them exempt, unless the take on an active combat role, if I am reading this correctly." Ambassador MacAlister looks around the chamber before shrugging "I could be wrong though."

I think you need to understand, our military at it's peak level of organization looks something like this:


Our uniform is no uniform. Our defense lies strictly in the doctrine that every citizen of UWA can become a combatant at a moments notice. An enemy can only enter our territory if he is willing to accept that, whether he's in a field, a hospital, a coffee shop, or a church, he will always be in hostile territory. This is how we have repelled invaders in the past.

Identification is done verbally through call-signs and passwords. English is our lingua franca, but there are over 70 languages spoken in the region, and very few outsiders know even a single word of any of them. Unless we are invaded by ourselves, there are few people who could accurately speak our language and mimic our accent.

So, unless the World Assembly is willing to provide UWA with the necessary resources to mount a defense in the manner that more developed countries can---in other words, unless you are willing to give us planes, tanks, uniforms, guns, naval ships, etc. to arm us on par with yourselves---then we cannot agree to the terms of this legislation.

[Caracasus]

We are not entirely sure that you have an armed forces by the definition of this legislation, or anything that would come under the category of combatant. It appears your nation is defended by a loose collective of guerrilla fighters/partisans if invaded, with no real chain of command or anything else we would consider to constitute combatants.

We would need clarification, but we do not think your nation's partisan resistance movement would necessarily be covered by this legislation.

[Separatist Peoples]

"No, a properly identifying mark would bring you into compliance with this law. It negates nothing. Such a mark would have to be: "clear and obviously recognizable way so as to prevent being mistaken for civilians, or otherwise remain immediately recognizable as combatants."."

Given that almost all of our inhabitants are a different skin color than any of our would-be invaders we will consider that the mark if necessary.

"I see you've elected to ENTIRELY miss the point. Your combatants can't look like your own civilians. So unless your soldiers are an entirely different and unique skin color that is immediately recognizable at distance, that is not a legal option."

So, unless the World Assembly is willing to provide UWA with the necessary resources to mount a defense in the manner that more developed countries can---in other words, unless you are willing to give us planes, tanks, uniforms, guns, naval ships, etc. to arm us on par with yourselves---then we cannot agree to the terms of this legislation.

"If your nation is unwilling to fulfill the obligations of WA membership in good faith, why should this delegation, that respects all enforced WA regulations regardless of how much we like them, even consider your opinions in determining WA law? Not unlike the story of the Red Hen, we see no reason to extend the fruits of WA membership, i.e a say in drafting, to an entity unwilling to partake in the prerequisite hard work. Your concerns will not be considered by this delegation until that time.

"Furthermore, the WA will not be funding your military. You do not get special treatment for being poorly developed in this arena. You can conform to legal standards, or you can resign, but neither will get you an extra cookie."

[Separatist Peoples]

We are not entirely sure that you have an armed forces by the definition of this legislation, or anything that would come under the category of combatant. It appears your nation is defended by a loose collective of guerrilla fighters/partisans if invaded, with no real chain of command or anything else we would consider to constitute combatants.

We would need clarification, but we do not think your nation's partisan resistance movement would necessarily be covered by this legislation.

"Civilian fighters would be combatants, and would need to identify themselves or seriously run awry of being unlawful combatants not able to claim protections by several other passed WA resolutions. If a nation wants to utilize such tactics, they always have the option to resign from the WA for the duration of the conflict."

[Caracasus]

We are not entirely sure that you have an armed forces by the definition of this legislation, or anything that would come under the category of combatant. It appears your nation is defended by a loose collective of guerrilla fighters/partisans if invaded, with no real chain of command or anything else we would consider to constitute combatants.

We would need clarification, but we do not think your nation's partisan resistance movement would necessarily be covered by this legislation.

"Civilian fighters would be combatants, and would need to identify themselves or seriously run awry of being unlawful combatants not able to claim protections by several other passed WA resolutions. If a nation wants to utilize such tactics, they always have the option to resign from the WA for the duration of the conflict."

Indeed. But we are unsure exactly how a nation state could be considered to have any control at all over the actions of partisan fighters as outlined above. From the description provided however, we would be dealing with a civilian population under occupation conducting hit-and-run attacks on a stronger force. Perhaps the question in this instance would be weather the nation in question could still be considered a nation.

[United West Afrika]

"Furthermore, the WA will not be funding your military. You do not get special treatment for being poorly developed in this arena. You can conform to legal standards, or you can resign, but neither will get you an extra cookie."

Your "legal standards" are in fact poorly disguised economic gates intended to keep poor countries poor. For UWA to adopt the changes you are proposing, we would have to radically alter our entire military. This would require such a tremendous amount of our resources it would severely hamper our development in other areas. That and, as I previously stated, you would only be making us more vulnerable to invasion. You cannot require us to put our soldiers in uniforms without providing us the resources necessary for making uniforms. It's akin to requiring that all countries grow rice, including arid ones, or requiring that all countries have a navy, including landlocked ones.

However, Caracasus may be correct in his interpretation that our military would not fall under this legislation's provisions. If I could receive some assurances, UWA may be inclined to reconsider its position.

[Defwa]

If done properly, you should be saving money by having an organized military. Fewer people becoming economically noncontributors, more efficient and reliable operation, less chance for the growth of random war lords.

You sound like my home country, so afraid of any change because it struck them as feminine. Of course at least they have snappy outfits and infrastructure.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Furthermore, the WA will not be funding your military. You do not get special treatment for being poorly developed in this arena. You can conform to legal standards, or you can resign, but neither will get you an extra cookie."

Your "legal standards" are in fact poorly disguised economic gates intended to keep poor countries poor. For UWA to adopt the changes you are proposing, we would have to radically alter our entire military. This would require such a tremendous amount of our resources it would severely hamper our development in other areas. That and, as I previously stated, you would only be making us more vulnerable to invasion. You cannot require us to put our soldiers in uniforms without providing us the resources necessary for making uniforms. It's akin to requiring that all countries grow rice, including arid ones, or requiring that all countries have a navy, including landlocked ones.

However, Caracasus may be correct in his interpretation that our military would not fall under this legislation's provisions. If I could receive some assurances, UWA may be inclined to reconsider its position.

"A single vote is not worth sweating over. If you really insist on considering every single citizen a member of your military, than you officially open yourself up to entirely unrestrained carpet bombing, widespread WMD, and indiscriminate free-fire zone conflicts that will result in the death of literally very individual who moves within the operational area of your enemy. There would literally be nothing illegal about torching every square inch of your cities, and those developed enemies you claim to fear so much would have absolutely no limit on the use of the sorts of weapons that can kill beyond the range of your rifles and shoulder-mounted rockets. You would be infinitely more vulnerable, because the restraints guerrilla operations rely on - a cooperative civilian population, wouldn't be protected. Do you really want to officially announce your vulnerability like that, knowing that there is no law against wars of conquest in the WA?"

[Great Jordan]

While I agree with almost ever provision there is a huge loophole. Reservists are immune. They have to be in order to function in their regular day to day roles but if war breaks out WA countries can still use Reservists as terrorists in civilian clothes and they can't be punished accordingly.

[Separatist Peoples]

While I agree with almost ever provision there is a huge loophole. Reservists are immune. They have to be in order to function in their regular day to day roles but if war breaks out WA countries can still use Reservists as terrorists in civilian clothes and they can't be punished accordingly.

"No. That would be illegal based on this and several past resolutions. Reservists who fight are still combatants."

[United West Afrika]

"A single vote is not worth sweating over. If you really insist on considering every single citizen a member of your military, than you officially open yourself up to entirely unrestrained carpet bombing, widespread WMD, and indiscriminate free-fire zone conflicts that will result in the death of literally very individual who moves within the operational area of your enemy. There would literally be nothing illegal about torching every square inch of your cities, and those developed enemies you claim to fear so much would have absolutely no limit on the use of the sorts of weapons that can kill beyond the range of your rifles and shoulder-mounted rockets. You would be infinitely more vulnerable, because the restraints guerrilla operations rely on - a cooperative civilian population, wouldn't be protected.

And what would the enemy gain from conducting such a war? What conqueror would want to rule over a nation of corpses? That someone would attack us simply to kill every person in UWA, thereby destroying all our human resources along with anything else that might be worth exploiting, would be a complete waste of the attacker's time. This situation is unrealistic.

No, what would be infinitely better for an attacker would be if all our military installations were clearly designated as such, so that they could be easily targeted and quickly neutralized so that our civilian population could be enslaved. Again, this legislation obviously favors developed invaders fighting conventional wars. It disarms weaker nations by removing their essential fighting tools.

In particular, this part

3. ...combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of...shielding themselves from enemy action

clearly favors the invading force. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to mount a defense against an occupying force if they knew they could safely travel around in our civilian areas.

Do you really want to officially announce your vulnerability like that, knowing that there is no law against wars of conquest in the WA?"

I see. So there's no prohibition on wars of aggression and conquest. But it's a complete coincidence that you're pursuing legislation that disarms weaker countries? I believe you have tipped your hand. I will hear no more of this dishonest impersonation of civility!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your "legal standards" are in fact poorly disguised economic gates intended to keep poor countries poor. For UWA to adopt the changes you are proposing, we would have to radically alter our entire military. This would require such a tremendous amount of our resources it would severely hamper our development in other areas. That and, as I previously stated, you would only be making us more vulnerable to invasion. You cannot require us to put our soldiers in uniforms without providing us the resources necessary for making uniforms. It's akin to requiring that all countries grow rice, including arid ones, or requiring that all countries have a navy, including landlocked ones.

However, Caracasus may be correct in his interpretation that our military would not fall under this legislation's provisions. If I could receive some assurances, UWA may be inclined to reconsider its position.

"A single vote is not worth sweating over. If you really insist on considering every single citizen a member of your military, than you officially open yourself up to entirely unrestrained carpet bombing, widespread WMD, and indiscriminate free-fire zone conflicts that will result in the death of literally very individual who moves within the operational area of your enemy. There would literally be nothing illegal about torching every square inch of your cities, and those developed enemies you claim to fear so much would have absolutely no limit on the use of the sorts of weapons that can kill beyond the range of your rifles and shoulder-mounted rockets. You would be infinitely more vulnerable, because the restraints guerrilla operations rely on - a cooperative civilian population, wouldn't be protected. Do you really want to officially announce your vulnerability like that, knowing that there is no law against wars of conquest in the WA?"

Hmm. As a former colonial Empire, we could get back into the business with a war on this front...

[Sobaira]

And what would the enemy gain from conducting such a war? What conqueror would want to rule over a nation of corpses? That someone would attack us simply to kill every person in UWA, thereby destroying all our human resources along with anything else that might be worth exploiting, would be a complete waste of the attacker's time. This situation is unrealistic.

No, what would be infinitely better for an attacker would be if all our military installations were clearly designated as such, so that they could be easily targeted and quickly neutralized so that our civilian population could be enslaved. Again, this legislation obviously favors developed invaders fighting conventional wars. It disarms weaker nations by removing their essential fighting tools.

In particular, this part

3. ...combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of...shielding themselves from enemy action

clearly favors the invading force. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to mount a defense against an occupying force if they knew they could safely travel around in our civilian areas.

Do you really want to officially announce your vulnerability like that, knowing that there is no law against wars of conquest in the WA?"

I see. So there's no prohibition on wars of aggression and conquest. But it's a complete coincidence that you're pursuing legislation that disarms weaker countries? I believe you have tipped your hand. I will hear no more of this dishonest impersonation of civility!

A short and rounded dark skinned woman spoke up from near the back, "Excuse me, honourable ambassador. While I am to be agreeing with you that the... granted situation from the legislator would be... unrealistic," she frowned a bit even thinking of the notion of a war of that type, "A less radical view for an invader against your people could be adopted, right? Even if it were to be not that everyone would die, but due to your adamant position here, anyone could be a target for the, well, the death."

"I am not a militarily inclined person, my nation has been without our conscious involvement in war for some time... less so including times where we were invaded but did not realise. Ambassador, my admitted ignorance accounted for, were it to be that maybe if an invader could attack everyone, they do not have to to still, how do you say, destroy the heart? If all of your people are in your active military, then they could target things like... civilian hospitals and other infrastructure; claiming said to be military infrastructure and a viable target. I would imagine I shan't be alone in condemning such an act and abuse of a system, but with the way your nation holds itself I would not know what action could be done legally in response without further preponderance of international law."

"But, unless I am currently mistaken, I am to be certain that attacks on military infrastructure and against military personnel are permitted in war; though depending on whether or not your insistence on totality within the military applies to children..." she stopped and began to look through older documents, "Er, honourable ambassador, could you clarify for us if your total civilian population's involvement within your active military includes children? If not, which I do be believing would be the legal course of action on this, that could reasonably give you some protections against such... omnicidal military directives if they do come during the time before this passes or in the case that it fails to do so... at least against such cases as rampant bombings and WMDs" She set aside the documents for now, letting one of her aides take over flipping through it, before finding the appropriate laws in question and setting the documents aside for now, pending answer.

"This said, there would be cause to fear for our people who may go to your nation in an attempt to distribute aid. We would not want our people to come to harm due to the risk that they or their garb would be impersonated by your people. I imagine that other ambassadors and delegates would feel a similar aversion to aiding in such a case. But if the resolution were to go through, in the unfortunate case that someone were to invade there would be some confidence in our ability to provide humanitarian aid as necessary or requested without unnecessary risk to our own people."

A second aide whispers something into her ear, and she begins to look glum all over again, "Er, further, if all civilians are to be considered as active military combatants, against a superiorly armed force, in the case that any civilian is approached they can be told to surrender and treated as a Prisoner of War and be held in accordance with international law with regards to such a person. As they are active combatants, just out of uniform; there is 'Good Reason' for them to be thought an official member of the force, due to your words here. They could then therefore be detained and put into forced labour. Attempts to prevent this would then give the superiorly armed force those they can kill while capturing the others, with only those who surrender either immediately or eventually due to succumbing to force or from the drop in morale from watching people around them be killed. While they would have to be treated well while within PoW camps, they would then be able to be subject to forced labour against their will, as they are PoWs and not civilian internees as they may have been originally in... loose reflection of these events, their consent is unnecessary."

"While there exists legislation on the record that prohibits slavery, this would give them a loophole to engage in 'enslaving' your people for the duration of the war. With your practices, any civilian could be captured and forced into labour or killed as part of an invasion. Without your practices, this is no longer the case; while your soldiers are admittedly far clearer a target, your civilians are far more protected from death and forced labour, regardless of whether your are victorious in the war or not." The second aide whispers to her again, and she shrinks away from public space some, "I apologize for the prolonged duration I spoke, and hope that I imparted no insult to your people, nation, or culture, or the honourable goal you have of protecting them from what you see as a threat to their safe and continued existence. Thank you for your time and attention, ambassador... and as of this time, Sobaira is still in favour of this legislation." She sat down, and the first aid showed her the law she wanted earlier while she waited for a response, and she nodded at reading it.

[Defwa]

"A single vote is not worth sweating over. If you really insist on considering every single citizen a member of your military, than you officially open yourself up to entirely unrestrained carpet bombing, widespread WMD, and indiscriminate free-fire zone conflicts that will result in the death of literally very individual who moves within the operational area of your enemy. There would literally be nothing illegal about torching every square inch of your cities, and those developed enemies you claim to fear so much would have absolutely no limit on the use of the sorts of weapons that can kill beyond the range of your rifles and shoulder-mounted rockets. You would be infinitely more vulnerable, because the restraints guerrilla operations rely on - a cooperative civilian population, wouldn't be protected.

And what would the enemy gain from conducting such a war? What conqueror would want to rule over a nation of corpses? That someone would attack us simply to kill every person in UWA, thereby destroying all our human resources along with anything else that might be worth exploiting, would be a complete waste of the attacker's time. This situation is unrealistic.

Well evidently the human resources in your nation are lacking to begin with, lacking the simple intelligence to organize a military or hire a competent ambassador. I can imagine some imperialistic power finding they can easily make better use of your resources with a fresh start- obviously minus the armed rabble you call a population.

[Mundiferrum]

And what would the enemy gain from conducting such a war? What conqueror would want to rule over a nation of corpses? That someone would attack us simply to kill every person in UWA, thereby destroying all our human resources along with anything else that might be worth exploiting, would be a complete waste of the attacker's time. This situation is unrealistic.

Well evidently the human resources in your nation are lacking to begin with, lacking the simple intelligence to organize a military or hire a competent ambassador. I can imagine some imperialistic power finding they can easily make better use of your resources with a fresh start- obviously minus the armed rabble you call a population.

Oh....That's an idea. Yo, aide person, bring me my telegram machine. Wait, we have internet access here? Even better!

OOC: Suddenly makes me wanna participate in proper roleplay...

[Separatist Peoples]

[
And what would the enemy gain from conducting such a war? What conqueror would want to rule over a nation of corpses? That someone would attack us simply to kill every person in UWA, thereby destroying all our human resources along with anything else that might be worth exploiting, would be a complete waste of the attacker's time. This situation is unrealistic.

"Mineral resources, agricultural expansion, clearing natural resources with non persistent chemical weapons, which are also legal, in rural areas would clear out most opposition, colonial gain, pure, blatant racism...have you say in in the Diplomacy efforts recently? People declare war for ridiculous reasons sometimes."

No, what would be infinitely better for an attacker would be if all our military installations were clearly designated as such, so that they could be easily targeted and quickly neutralized so that our civilian population could be enslaved. Again, this legislation obviously favors developed invaders fighting conventional wars. It disarms weaker nations by removing their essential fighting tools.

"Not if the goal is extermination and re-appropriation of territory, and not the securing of nontangible prizes such as political authority or economic gain."

In particular, this part

3. ...combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves as such with the intention of...shielding themselves from enemy action

clearly favors the invading force. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to mount a defense against an occupying force if they knew they could safely travel around in our civilian areas.

"Hardly. An invading military brings with it no or very few civilians. That means their population is target-rich compared to the defending force, who has, by nature of conflict, a significant civilian population to hinder the advancing army. Except in your nation. If the C.D.S.P. has any military action in your neck of the woods, we'll be sure to tell our troopers that the women and children are formally considered soldiers, and to engage in target practice."

Do you really want to officially announce your vulnerability like that, knowing that there is no law against wars of conquest in the WA?"

I see. So there's no prohibition on wars of aggression and conquest. But it's a complete coincidence that you're pursuing legislation that disarms weaker countries? I believe you have tipped your hand. I will hear no more of this dishonest impersonation of civility!

"If, and I doubt you will, you go back and read debate transcripts attempting to deal with exactly that, you'll find that the C.D.S.P. has long been an opponent of wars of appropriation and conquest. Such a ban would be, regrettably, political suicide right now. But, sure, ignore all the evidence to the contrary. You totally got me. By installing a legal protection for civilians and noncombatants, I've revealed the dark plan of my imperialist, quasi-reptilian overlords. Shame on me."

[Imperium Anglorum]

[
And what would the enemy gain from conducting such a war? What conqueror would want to rule over a nation of corpses? That someone would attack us simply to kill every person in UWA, thereby destroying all our human resources along with anything else that might be worth exploiting, would be a complete waste of the attacker's time. This situation is unrealistic.

"Mineral resources, agricultural expansion, clearing natural resources with non persistent chemical weapons, which are also legal, in rural areas would clear out most opposition, colonial gain, pure, blatant racism...have you say in in the Diplomacy efforts recently? People declare war for ridiculous reasons sometimes."

<sarcasm> How about appropriation of colonial holdings? We can always do a Roman-style invasion — there's a reason why Tacitus said 'To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace'. Hint hint, it's because there is nobody left to fight... because they're all dead.

I think some mass nerve gas should deal with the enemy soldiers who are attacking our troops (defensive purposes only, remember?). And, we can appropriate the entire area as the property of the West Africa Company, so it wouldn't be the government committing any of these actions... So, no more opposition, and we can quarry the stone for a glorious monument of our victory in downtown Londinium! It'll be the largest one in nearly 20 years! </sarcasm>

Parsons wearing his Foreign Service Cavalry uniform (including the white gloves, his engraved sabre, the officer's cap with strap, his trench whistle, and his trusty service revolver), quite deliberately states, 'However it is, this 'my state isn't actually a state' argument is ridiculous. CDSP's Bell has done a very good job dispelling the total idiocy of such statements. If your entire population, no matter what they wear, is an armed force, and anything they wear is also a uniform of the military, then — the only thing to conclude is that they are all soldiers. Thus, they are all liable for destruction from our military. If your so-called state possess none of the defining characteristics of a state, it isn't one at all'.

[Caracasus]

One thing we would like clarification on:

We are assuming here that "combatants" refers to forces realistically under the control of a nation state, yes?

We recognise that the point raised by the above nation (UWA) is, quite frankly, unlikely in the extreme. However, a more likely scenario would be if a nation was to be invaded or attacked, and groups of partisans banded together with the express purpose of liberating occupied territory (a goal they share with their homeland, even if they are not directly under the control of said homeland) - who exactly would be responsible for their actions should they break any part of this resolution?

[Losthaven]

A resolution that restricts the actions of military leaders and their men, with a goal of preventing "unfair" deception, does nothing to improve civil rights. There is no legitimate argument that this proposal increases freedoms and, much to the contrary, it restricts the freedom to act in relevant ways in the name of moral decency. We object on grounds of deception.

Furthermore, there are insufficient exceptions for good cause. If a regiment can prevent or end a horrible atrocity by falsely pretending to be farmers delivering food to a detention camp, that conduct should be commended, not labeled a war crime.

"And yet the Secretariat has made no attempt to remove or correct this, and this has been in drafting for MONTHS. File a GHR if you feel you must, but this clearly hasn't sent up red flags.

"As for "good cause", there is no possible definition of good cause that isn't so subjective as to gut this. There is no time it is acceptable to risk drawing in a neutral power by utilizing a neutral party's insignia. There are alternatives available in every situation, and nations are expected to utilize them instead of poorly justifying perfidy. I reject the notion that a nation may act perfidiously in the name of "the greater good", as that greater good is rarely sufficiently objective."

There's no reason to define good cause, but a good cause exception should nonetheless have been allowed. There are always exceptions when it comes to military struggle - frankly, we need only imagine what limits we would respect if a great, evil force threatened to commit some horrible genocide on us to realize that any deception under those circumstances would be justifiable (whether to resist, escape, etc.)

Taking a step back from genocide, what will this do to domestic spying? (OOC: Think how effective James Bond would be if he were prohibited from dressing as a civilian).

Losthaven has no military to speak of and we rely on diplomacy and the goodwill of our neighbors to keep us safe. That said, we remain concerned that our allies will be significantly disadvantaged because this resolution paints with too broad a brush and outlaws activities which - under the right circumstances - could not possibly be viewed as war crimes.

[United West Afrika]

Well evidently the human resources in your nation are lacking to begin with, lacking the simple intelligence to organize a military or hire a competent ambassador.

Of course here we see the actual impetus behind this legislation: racism. We've come to the WA looking for brotherhood among nations. I am sorry to say characters like this have left us sorely disappointed.

And for those of you contemplating invasion, I would reconsider. We "use every part of the buffalo," as they say. We know how sensitive your people are about interring their dead, what with your monuments and vast graveyards. I doubt your civilian population would be pleased to learn that their boys were literally eaten to gain an inhospitable country where an AK-47 hides behind every blade of grass. I say this with your welfare at the forefront of my mind, of course.

However, this has not been a fruitless discussion. Defwa's earlier point that we might save money in the long run by adopting more conventional military doctrine is worth considering. We will review our options for a...better...way to organize our military. Until our Supreme Warlord united the region, our most common foe had been ourselves. We can easily recognize the differences of appearance and speech among each other that would be lost on a foreigner, hence uniforms would have been redundant during our prolonged civil strife. That, and the concept of a "war crime" was nonexistent during this period. Perhaps it is time that we find some way to delineate the responsibilities of combatants and non-combatants during wartime, and subsequently provide some proper designation.

With that, UWA will refrain from further commenting on this matter.

[Sobaira]

Taking a step back from genocide, what will this do to domestic spying? (OOC: Think how effective James Bond would be if he were prohibited from dressing as a civilian).

The ambassador for Sobaira coughed to let her presence be known before chiming in, "Excuse me, honourable ambassador, I do be believing that the legislator has already addressed this issue. If my aide could get me the minutes..." one of her aides handed her some documents and she began to read from them,

"And furthermore, the proposal specifically applies to combatants. That indicates troops who are involved in fighting. Spies don't fight. Their job is to blend and pass along intelligence. They aren't all James Bond imitators who shoot their way through enemy bases, they collect and transmit intel. No fighting. As such, nothing, absolutely nothing, in this resolution prevents human intelligence assets, military or civilian, from changing garb to blend, so long as they don't engage in combat operations."

She handed the documents back, "Thank you for your time, ambassador," and sat back down, trying her best to ignore the plethora of threatening statements lobbed between the ambassador of the UWA and the persons engaged in more 'spirited' discussion with them.

[Mundiferrum]

"And yet the Secretariat has made no attempt to remove or correct this, and this has been in drafting for MONTHS. File a GHR if you feel you must, but this clearly hasn't sent up red flags.

"As for "good cause", there is no possible definition of good cause that isn't so subjective as to gut this. There is no time it is acceptable to risk drawing in a neutral power by utilizing a neutral party's insignia. There are alternatives available in every situation, and nations are expected to utilize them instead of poorly justifying perfidy. I reject the notion that a nation may act perfidiously in the name of "the greater good", as that greater good is rarely sufficiently objective."

There's no reason to define good cause, but a good cause exception should nonetheless have been allowed. There are always exceptions when it comes to military struggle - frankly, we need only imagine what limits we would respect if a great, evil force threatened to commit some horrible genocide on us to realize that any deception under those circumstances (whether to resist, escape, etc.) would be justifiable.

Taking a step back from genocide, what will this do to domestic spying? (OOC: Think how effective James Bond would be if he were prohibited from dressing as a civilian).

Losthaven has no military to speak of and we rely on diplomacy and the goodwill of our neighbors to keep us safe. That said, we remain concerned that our allies will be significantly disadvantaged because this resolution paints with too broad a brush and outlaws activities which - under the right circumstances - could not possibly be viewed as war crimes.

I believe spies aren't usually counted as combatants, and James Bond is a generally incompetent spy. And an example from you for a good cause would be helpful, though I think in, say, an invasion or something, it shouldn't be that hard to mark yourself as a proper combatant in the heat of battle -- and if they are committing genocide against you, then wearing identifying markers for your soldiers won't really do much of a difference anyway. By following the resolution, you'd just be excusing yourself from getting bottom-slapped by the WA, while your invader gets the boot.

Well evidently the human resources in your nation are lacking to begin with, lacking the simple intelligence to organize a military or hire a competent ambassador.

Of course here we see the actual impetus behind this legislation: racism. We've come to the WA looking for brotherhood among nations. I am sorry to say characters like this have left us sorely disappointed.

And for those of you contemplating invasion, I would reconsider. We "use every part of the buffalo," as they say. We know how sensitive your people are about interring their dead, what with your monuments and vast graveyards. I doubt your civilian population would be pleased to learn that their boys were literally eaten to gain an inhospitable country where an AK-47 hides behind every blade of grass. I say this with your welfare at the forefront of my mind, of course.

However, this has not been a fruitless discussion. Defwa's earlier point that we might save money in the long run by adopting more conventional military doctrine is worth considering. We will review our options for a...better...way to organize our military. Until our Supreme Warlord united the region, our most common foe had been ourselves. We can easily recognize the differences of appearance and speech among each other that would be lost on a foreigner, hence uniforms would have been redundant during our prolonged civil strife. That, and the concept of a "war crime" was nonexistent during this period. Perhaps it is time that we find some way to delineate the responsibilities of combatants and non-combatants during wartime, and subsequently provide some proper designation.

With that, UWA will refrain from further commenting on this matter.

Really? No one equated race to general incompetence here.

[Defwa]

Well evidently the human resources in your nation are lacking to begin with, lacking the simple intelligence to organize a military or hire a competent ambassador.

Of course here we see the actual impetus behind this legislation: racism. We've come to the WA looking for brotherhood among nations. I am sorry to say characters like this have left us sorely disappointed.

And for those of you contemplating invasion, I would reconsider. We "use every part of the buffalo," as they say. We know how sensitive your people are about interring their dead, what with your monuments and vast graveyards. I doubt your civilian population would be pleased to learn that their boys were literally eaten to gain an inhospitable country where an AK-47 hides behind every blade of grass. I say this with your welfare at the forefront of my mind, of course.

Yes, let's blame racism for all criticism. Branlerelle was the same way and lets look at what social progress they've made. None? Oh, right, that's why I can't live there anymore.

Your incompetence was objectively determined with no regard to ethnicity and you might have noticed addressed specific points which you yourself recognize to be valid. Your position only weakens with this latest claim- Defwa is pacifist to a fault and has never been in a war outside of one of survival, we don't use ground troops until drone strikes have cleansed the area of any determinable risk, and Defwa is accepting of cannibalism.
Though, while Defwaen human meat is usually very healthy, you should be conducting tests prior to engaging in cannibalism as there are all sorts of tests that need to be run to prevent diseases resulting in death and insanity... it just now strikes me that might be your problem.

[Losthaven]

A resolution that restricts the actions of military leaders and their men, with a goal of preventing "unfair" deception, does nothing to improve civil rights. There is no legitimate argument that this proposal increases freedoms and, much to the contrary, it restricts the freedom to act in relevant ways in the name of moral decency. We object on grounds of deception.

Furthermore, there are insufficient exceptions for good cause. If a regiment can prevent or end a horrible atrocity by falsely pretending to be farmers delivering food to a detention camp, that conduct should be commended, not labeled a war crime.

"And yet the Secretariat has made no attempt to remove or correct this, and this has been in drafting for MONTHS. File a GHR if you feel you must, but this clearly hasn't sent up red flags.

OOC: I didn't mention this in my IC post above, but I'll do so here. Obviously, amidst the backslapping and praise, no one thought to even bring up that you may have selected the wrong category. Neither did I; I personally let it slide because I can see a very distant argument that we are protecting the rights of civilians, medics, etc., by prohibiting soldiers from falsely assuming their protections, as that encourages enemy soldiers to respect those protections. For example, if enemy soldiers are sure that someone who looks like a civilian is not a soldier in disguise they will be less likely to shoot first and ask questions later.

But I think it's a pretty weak argument. And, really, it's not clear from the preamble or the arguments made in this thread how this improves civil freedoms even in the weak way discussed above. The most direct consequence of this law is that the free actions of soldiers and military commanders are reduced, on the grounds that it is unfair perfidy to allow certain kinds of deception. Either Moral Decency or Political Stability are likely better categories for future resolutions that regulated what militaries can and cannot do tactically.

My IC response to a proposal that passes but in the wrong category (at least in my opinion, but here I think objectively so) is to treat it as a broken promise. That is, Losthaven will behave as if this law promised to improve civil freedoms but has in fact failed to do so. Hence, my IC response above.