[PASSED] Protected Status in Wartime

[Separatist Peoples]

“Unlike usually, where this delegation opposes anything to do with anything about war or things relating to conflict, this delegation can — after consultations with the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister — give its support, should clause 7 be removed from the document. Unlike all the other clauses, which deal with purely international and humanitarian issues, clause 7, in the mind of the Foreign Office, delves too deeply into the internal affairs of the member states. Otherwise, this delegation has no issue with the proposed legislation, surprisingly.’

“I’m sorry, but to allow such exclusion would, effectively, gut this. Officers are responsible for the actions of the soldiers under their command, and extraordinarily so when the soldiers are following their orders. They are as responsible for not issuing illegal orders as the soldiers are responsible to not follow them.

“What’s more, in many systems, refusal to follow an order under grounds of questionable morality is not a protected situation. These soldiers can go to jail or even be executed for failing to obey orders. This creates a very dangerous situation where soldiers can feel that they have no option but to, say, massacre a humanitarian aid camp, or force civilians of a particular ethnicity into concentration and death camps, because the alternative is a definite punishment at the hands of their officers. Officers could essentially force a serious war crime to occur and then avoid responsibility entirely. By making these orders illegal in the first place and officers just as culpable as soldiers, there is an added protection against the abuse of power that would otherwise result in a crime.

“While I’m sure that the Imperium’s officer corps is perfectly respectable on their own, this assembly is still full of Orcs who are less scrupulous.”

[Mousebumples]

Point of clarification: as I read this, this would apply to all member nations during all conflicts - not just with fellow member nations or in the case of a multi-national conflict, containing two or more member nations. I'm sure you'll get some pushback from some players who want to engage in all sorts of nefarious wartime deeds with non-member nations who are not held to the same standards as member nations, so I figured it was worth confirming that that is indeed your intention.

[Separatist Peoples]

Point of clarification: as I read this, this would apply to all member nations during all conflicts - not just with fellow member nations or in the case of a multi-national conflict, containing two or more member nations. I'm sure you'll get some pushback from some players who want to engage in all sorts of nefarious wartime deeds with non-member nations who are not held to the same standards as member nations, so I figured it was worth confirming that that is indeed your intention.

"It is. WA nations ought hold themselves to higher standards, even when the rest of the world does not. In fact, on many topics, we do, for no other reason than moral obligation.

"Besides, nearly all those protections go out the window when the enemy abuses them, regardless of nationality, so it's not like members can't play dirty when the situation really calls for it ."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Its a shame that I know better, because it is sorely tempting to submit this just to see how well it does."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

6. Member states shall consider command responsibility in the prosecution of the abuse of protected status in wartime, and shall consider any orders or authorizations to the contrary of these provisions to be manifestly illegal.

7. Member states shall consider command responsibility in the prosecution of the abuse of protected status in wartime, and shall consider orders to the contrary of these provisions to be manifestly illegal. Member states shall further ensure that subordinates can refuse such orders without fear of penalty.

Other than the highlighted language, these provisions appear identical. They could probably be combined, no?

[Abazhaka]

Maybe their should just be one big all encompassing 'Rules of War' proposal. Just an idea.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Maybe their should just be one big all encompassing 'Rules of War' proposal. Just an idea.

There's far too much ground to cover in just one resolution. This deliberate, methodical approach is more nuanced, more surgical, and more successful than a blundering elephant of tone-deafness would be. Keep in mind the 3000-character limit for resolutions, and you see that any other approach would necessarily be either far too restrictive or totally ineffective. The subtlety of hitting a middle ground requires too much finesse to get all rules of war into one or two resolutions.

[Separatist Peoples]

Maybe their should just be one big all encompassing 'Rules of War' proposal. Just an idea.

"Such an endeavor would, regrettably, be too great in scope and lacking in detail."

6. Member states shall consider command responsibility in the prosecution of the abuse of protected status in wartime, and shall consider any orders or authorizations to the contrary of these provisions to be manifestly illegal.

7. Member states shall consider command responsibility in the prosecution of the abuse of protected status in wartime, and shall consider orders to the contrary of these provisions to be manifestly illegal. Member states shall further ensure that subordinates can refuse such orders without fear of penalty.

Other than the highlighted language, these provisions appear identical. They could probably be combined, no?

"Huh. I suppose they could. This is the problem with letting myself forget about these resolutions for a few weeks at a time before bumping them again: I never remember why I make the changes that I make."

[Ainocra]

The only thing that really jumps out at me is this part

3. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective. Member states’ combatants are not restricted from utilizing civilian equipment or clothing, provided they alter or mark them in a clear and obviously recognizable way so as to prevent being mistaken for civilians, or otherwise remain immediately recognizable as combatants.

I could see an escaping POW having trouble with the emboldened portions, since one of the best methods of eluding capture would be to disguise ones self as a civilian.
Though if you added a bit exempting escapees from such I think it would be sufficient.

[Dibeg]

The Dibegian Government, although agreeing with the majority of the intent of this proposal, does not wish to support it as legislating what should be unspoken law is coarse In our opinion. Is it a law that one should not fire on the enemy while wearing their uniform? I don't believe it is, but it is moral precedent. Any nation that did that would face severe criticism from this nation. Therefore, this nation does not wish to support this proposal as acknowledging that this unspeakable act of unsportsmanlike conduct should be legislated on is an insult to the organised armed forces of every nation.
In intent, this proposal is commendable, upon further consideration however, our support cannot be granted.

[Separatist Peoples]

The only thing that really jumps out at me is this part

3. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective. Member states’ combatants are not restricted from utilizing civilian equipment or clothing, provided they alter or mark them in a clear and obviously recognizable way so as to prevent being mistaken for civilians, or otherwise remain immediately recognizable as combatants.

I could see an escaping POW having trouble with the emboldened portions, since one of the best methods of eluding capture would be to disguise ones self as a civilian.
Though if you added a bit exempting escapees from such I think it would be sufficient.

"I'm hesitant to do so, for fear of rampant abuse by POWs turned guerillas. POWs are already expected to stay in uniform during their capture and detention, making that exception seems odd in light of the existing rules. After all, it's not as though escape while in uniform isn't fairly routinely done.

"If it's a significant concern, would a limitation exempting only the act of escaping and not any form of strategic aggressive action against enemy objectives be a fair stipulation to your mind, Fleet Marshal?"

The Dibegian Government, although agreeing with the majority of the intent of this proposal, does not wish to support it as legislating what should be unspoken law is coarse In our opinion. Is it a law that one should not fire on the enemy while wearing their uniform? I don't believe it is, but it is moral precedent. Any nation that did that would face severe criticism from this nation. Therefore, this nation does not wish to support this proposal as acknowledging that this unspeakable act of unsportsmanlike conduct should be legislated on is an insult to the organised armed forces of every nation.
In intent, this proposal is commendable, upon further consideration however, our support cannot be granted.

"That's adorably naive, ambassador. I suppose the same could be said about not shooting surrendering troops or POWs, taking slaves, and utilizing torture, yet all of those instances are covered by WA law."

[New Harron]

The Dibegian Government, although agreeing with the majority of the intent of this proposal, does not wish to support it as legislating what should be unspoken law is coarse In our opinion. Is it a law that one should not fire on the enemy while wearing their uniform? I don't believe it is, but it is moral precedent. Any nation that did that would face severe criticism from this nation. Therefore, this nation does not wish to support this proposal as acknowledging that this unspeakable act of unsportsmanlike conduct should be legislated on is an insult to the organised armed forces of every nation.
In intent, this proposal is commendable, upon further consideration however, our support cannot be granted.

"So, Ambassador, you mean to say that you refuse to support a proposal, that not only aligns with your particular ideology, but you admit would be beneficial to all Member States, simply on the ground that you believe it should be some sort of "unspoken law"? You are aware that the World does not run on hopes and dreams?"

Edit/OOC:
This is Tinfect I forgot I was using a puppet.

[Ainocra]

The only thing that really jumps out at me is this part



I could see an escaping POW having trouble with the emboldened portions, since one of the best methods of eluding capture would be to disguise ones self as a civilian.
Though if you added a bit exempting escapees from such I think it would be sufficient.

"I'm hesitant to do so, for fear of rampant abuse by POWs turned guerillas. POWs are already expected to stay in uniform during their capture and detention, making that exception seems odd in light of the existing rules. After all, it's not as though escape while in uniform isn't fairly routinely done.

"If it's a significant concern, would a limitation exempting only the act of escaping and not any form of strategic aggressive action against enemy objectives be a fair stipulation to your mind, Fleet Marshal?"

The Dibegian Government, although agreeing with the majority of the intent of this proposal, does not wish to support it as legislating what should be unspoken law is coarse In our opinion. Is it a law that one should not fire on the enemy while wearing their uniform? I don't believe it is, but it is moral precedent. Any nation that did that would face severe criticism from this nation. Therefore, this nation does not wish to support this proposal as acknowledging that this unspeakable act of unsportsmanlike conduct should be legislated on is an insult to the organised armed forces of every nation.
In intent, this proposal is commendable, upon further consideration however, our support cannot be granted.

"That's adorably naive, ambassador. I suppose the same could be said about not shooting surrendering troops or POWs, taking slaves, and utilizing torture, yet all of those instances are covered by WA law."

I would think that to be fair, after all the first duty of any PoW is to escape. Stopping to perform guerrilla action would hinder that duty.

[Abazhaka]

says sarcastically "You mean I can't use guerrilla tactics involving soldiers disguised as civilians? Ambulance bombs? oh the inhumanity!

[Separatist Peoples]

I would think that to be fair, after all the first duty of any PoW is to escape. Stopping to perform guerrilla action would hinder that duty.

"Upon deeper consideration, this really would be better suited to a replacement of POW Accord, as there is a lot of nuance in what is acceptable and what isn't. For example, POWs do not stop being soldiers upon capture, and do not stop being bound by military law, especially considering the current POW accord requires that they are supplied with reasonable facsimiles of uniforms. In fact, upon escape, they stop being a POW and resume the mantle, so to speak, of being a regular soldier who is simply cut off from their unit. As such, it would reasonably follow that their requirement to stay in uniform to prevent perfidious means would be equal to that of a non-captured soldier.

"Additionally, there is no international mandate that POWs ought to escape, and that the priority for such be paramount to all other options. So, while a nation might order this for their soldiers, there is no guarantee that every military will. In light of all this, I'm inclined to not make such exceptions and simply leave the details to a future POW Accord replacement. I know that the Dark Star delegation has been playing with one such idea. However, there is no evidence to suggest that such an attempt would be successful, and it would require drafting both a repeal and a replacement and passing both before I could move forwards with this.

"Don't take this as me dismissing the concern for POWs outright, my friend. I'm just trying to reconcile the scope of such an exception with this draft, and whether I inadvertently block an attempt at addressing this by adding exceptions in. Or, worse, block an attempt by not adding exceptions. I suppose the first question to answer is whether not not an escaped POW is a combatant?"

[Three Weasels]

Why did you pick mild? A reading of your proposal suggests it may merit a stronger strength.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why did you pick mild? A reading of your proposal suggests it may merit a stronger strength.

"Simple. Mild is a safe place to start, and a concern with strength of category is a very simple fix. I could see this meriting Significant. I can't especially see it managing Strong."

[Three Weasels]

Why did you pick mild? A reading of your proposal suggests it may merit a stronger strength.

"Simple. Mild is a safe place to start, and a concern with strength of category is a very simple fix. I could see this meriting Significant. I can't especially see it managing Strong."

Fair reasoning. I agree, it doesn't have the language to justify "Strong" but "Significant" seems appropriate.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: under the relevant RL rules, escaped POWs and military personnel evading capture generally are allowed to change into civilian clothing -- or even attempts at copying enemy uniforms -- but if they then engage in & are convicted of acts of active espionage or sabotage they can be punished on the same basis as any other non-uniformed spies & saboteurs...

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: under the relevant RL rules, escaped POWs and military personnel evading capture generally are allowed to change into civilian clothing -- or even attempts at copying enemy uniforms -- but if they then engage in & are convicted of acts of active espionage or sabotage they can be punished on the same basis as any other non-uniformed spies & saboteurs...

OOC: Because they're not "combatants", I don't think that concern relates to this proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: under the relevant RL rules, escaped POWs and military personnel evading capture generally are allowed to change into civilian clothing -- or even attempts at copying enemy uniforms -- but if they then engage in & are convicted of acts of active espionage or sabotage they can be punished on the same basis as any other non-uniformed spies & saboteurs...

OOC: Because they're not "combatants", I don't think that concern relates to this proposal.

OOC: that's what I've even wrestling with since Ainocra brought it up. If they are not combatants, they don't really need covered. If they are, or become one through action, they would have to be covered, or there's a dangerous loophole.

However, I've been leaning towards calling them combatants, as they lose POW status upon escape, and are expected to rejoin with their unit and re-enter the fight.

[Imperium Anglorum]

2. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not falsely utilize the protected status accompanying the symbols or uniforms of neutral or uninvolved parties with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, otherwise disguising forces to execute a military objective, or for the general purpose of upsetting the neutrality of any party.

3. During a time of armed conflict, member states’ combatants shall not utilize the protected status of civilian noncombatants by disguising themselves such with the intention of engaging the enemy, shielding themselves from enemy action, or to otherwise execute a military objective. Member states’ combatants are not restricted from utilizing civilian equipment or clothing, provided they alter or mark them in a clear and obviously recognizable way so as to prevent being mistaken for civilians, or otherwise remain immediately recognizable as combatants.

Well, that pretty much makes many of these illegal. Now, I would absolutely agree that you cannot don a (let's say Albion and Gaul are at war, and we're Albion) Gaulish uniform and start shooting. However, I would not agree that you cannot don a Iberian uniform for the purpose of not getting shot, as long as you take that uniform off before pulling triggers.

From the real life examples of the First and Second World Wars, quoting the same Wikipedia page: "disguising a warship to appear to be a neutral merchant vessel, or a merchant vessel on your opponent's side, has traditionally been considered a legitimate ruse de guerre, provided the belligerent raises their own flag to break the deception, prior to firing their guns ... Both sides during the world wars used this tactic".

On the other hand, what is most important, in my opinion, is that symbols of peace be protected (such as the flag of truce) as well as the symbols of organisations which have the same duties and or responsibilities as the real-world Red Cross.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Donning an Iberian uniform and marching into the Gaulish borders, without ever firing a shot, would be an act of war. However, the declaration would be against Iberia, not Albion, despite Iberia having absolutely intention of going to war. This is unacceptable, as it degrades trust in systems that nations should always be able to trust: the neutrality of nations that are declared neutral."

[Saanamng]

[align=][region-tag][/region-tag][/align]

I believe that this bill should be passed and sent to the World assembly for further evaluation and consideration to become a resolution voted`1

[Dibeg]

Well, that pretty much makes many of these illegal. Now, I would absolutely agree that you cannot don a (let's say Albion and Gaul are at war, and we're Albion) Gaulish uniform and start shooting. However, I would not agree that you cannot don a Iberian uniform for the purpose of not getting shot, as long as you take that uniform off before pulling triggers.

From the real life examples of the First and Second World Wars, quoting the same Wikipedia page: "disguising a warship to appear to be a neutral merchant vessel, or a merchant vessel on your opponent's side, has traditionally been considered a legitimate ruse de guerre, provided the belligerent raises their own flag to break the deception, prior to firing their guns ... Both sides during the world wars used this tactic".

On the other hand, what is most important, in my opinion, is that symbols of peace be protected (such as the flag of truce) as well as the symbols of organisations which have the same duties and or responsibilities as the real-world Red Cross.

I completely agree that Such ruses as you have mentioned are completely legal as long as no shot is fired until you show your true flag. I agree that what should be legislated upon, and should come with severe penalties, is the disregard of a truce sign as said by Imperium Anglorum. I think that an enemy that continues to fire into a surrendering ship is guilty of one of the worst war crimes, and I hope this legislation makes that clear.