[DRAFT] WA Peacemaking

[Railana]

The second of a planned set of four proposals consisting of the following:

1. Regulation of WA Military Force: restricts the World Assembly from establishing a military force or employing violence except for the purposes listed below,
2. WA Peacemaking: authorizes the World Assembly to engage in offensive military action against violent non-state actors in consenting member states,
3. WA Peacekeeping: authorizes the World Assembly to engage in defensive military action while negotiating, implementing, and enforcing peace agreements between consenting parties, and
4. WA Peacebuilding: authorizes the World Assembly to engage in defensive military action while engaging in post-conflict reconstruction in member states.

I am aware that this proposal is currently illegal for contradicting GAR #2. However, upon the repeal of GAR #2, this proposal will be legal, as the "no army rule" has been abolished.

WA Peacemaking
Category: International Security | Strength: Mild

Affirming the World Assembly's longstanding goal to promote public order and safety in all World Assembly member states,

Acknowledging that the recognized governments of World Assembly member states can be threatened by insurgencies and other militant groups,

Seeking to assist such states in maintaining internal security through an offensive military force sanctioned by the World Assembly, at all times with the consent of the recognized governments of those states,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines the following terms for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "recognized government" as an entity that is recognized by the World Assembly as possessing the right to exercise political authority with respect to a particular state, and
   2. "violent non-state actor" as an entity that contests the right to govern of a recognized government and that uses violence illegal under international law, including but not limited to war crimes and crimes against humanity, to achieve its aims;
2. Establishes the World Assembly Security Directorate (WASD) with the following mandate:
   
   1. to identify member states that may benefit from offensive military intervention by the World Assembly, and to evaluate requests from member states for such potential interventions,
   2. to authorize offensive military intervention by the World Assembly in a member state under this resolution only when the following criteria apply:
      
      1. at least one of the following criteria apply:
         
         1. a violent non-state actor is operating within the member state, or
         2. the recognized government of the member state does not have the capacity to maintain public order and safety,
      2. the recognized government of the member state has granted permission for potential World Assembly military intervention within the member state, and
      3. the recognized government of the member state is in full compliance with international law, including but not limited to international human rights and humanitarian law,
   3. to establish an individual offensive World Assembly Security Force (WASF) for each authorized intervention into a member state under this resolution with the following mandate:
      
      1. combating violent non-state actors operating within the member state,
      2. ensuring the safety of aid workers and other components of any international humanitarian effort present and operating within the member state,
      3. supporting the development of the military and police forces of the recognized government, including but not limited to training and the provision of necessary equipment,
      4. maintaining general public order and safety within the member state, and
      5. withdrawing upon the establishment of public order and safety within the member state, the withdrawal of consent by the recognized government, or if withdrawal is deemed appropriate by the WASD,
   4. to coordinate the staffing, equipping, deployment, operation, and eventual withdrawal and disbandment of each WASF, with the understanding that the recognized government of a member state may demand the withdrawal of a WASF deployed in that member state at any time, and
   5. to accept volunteer military personnel for deployment in a WASF, as well as donations of military equipment and other supplies for use in a WASF, from member states, with the understanding that no member state may be compelled to provide support of any kind to a WASF;
3. Urges member states to provide military and humanitarian assistance to the recognized governments of states unable to maintain public order and safety or threatened by violent non-state actors where appropriate.

[Losthaven]

Violates the "no army" rule

[Elke and Elba]

It is true that this proposal is currently illegal under GAR #2 and the "no army" rule; that said, I'm hoping that this proposal will demonstrate that World Assembly peacekeeping isn't the bogeyman it's made out to be, and so might persuade others to support my efforts to repeal GAR #2 and change the "no army" rule.

Violates the "no army" rule

While my relations with Aurelia are probably considered abysmal, due credit must be given that he has already said that it was illegal. Ard has made it quite crystal clear here, anyway.

As usual, such effort like this will go to waste. GAR#2 can be repealed, but the "no army" rule can't. There hasn't been definitive black-and-white statements in the forums by the Hive Mind that they will if GAR#2 is repealed. I would like not to think this as a cheap shot for the Railanan/Aurelian delegation to repeal GAR#2, but there is no indication otherwise, and one cannot be blamed for suspecting you given the lengths the aforementioned delegation tried to get GAR#2 repealed.

And oh: I don't think the "no army" rule should be changed - to any of the Hive Minders reading the above message out there and misinterpreting that I support a change.

[Ainocra]

This is precisely why I cannot support the repeal of GA 2, or the replacement


OOC:

tis an april fools joke i'll wager

[Kaboomlandia]

Creating Military or Police Force

The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I don't see the point in posting this to the forum. You are not going to get any useful feedback: do you really think that people who have proved themselves incapable of reading so far as the second line of your post are also going to be providing valuable insights on the nuances of SSR?

The sole issue at stake is the complete intransigence of the game staff when it comes to even considering listening to dissent about the rule. Given they don't really read the forum, posting a draft in the forum isn't going to make a difference to that.

Just all seems a little pointless.

Also, I am betting right now that despite a close reading of this revealing it as one of the most forcefully pro-national sovereigntist proposals ever written, the "modern NatSovs" end up opposing it.

[Separatist Peoples]

Creating Military or Police Force

The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

OOC: Jesus Christ. Read the entire OP next time. He said it was a proof of concept exercize. Read the damn OP before commenting, will you?

I'll try to comment more in-depth tonight.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Creating Military or Police Force

The WA cannot have or form a military, peace keeping force, the World Police or any other such variation. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

Do you actually read the OP of these things, or just comment on what you want to read? Perhaps once you pass a legal resolution, your insight may change?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Broadly speaking, do you intend the term "illegal violence" in Clause 3 to encompass all violence that is illegal in the member state in question; or violent violations of international laws passed by the WA only? In other words, are member states going to be requesting WA intervention against all violent insurgencies, including (possibly rare, but theoretically possible) rebel groups who conduct violence only against combatant government forces and otherwise respect all WA law relating to human rights and war conduct? Or do you envision this being limited to action against those insurgent forces who demonstrably commit atrocities in the course of their rebellion?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Good point. It never clarifies what illegal violence is. It also does not specify which situations would demand such a remedy (or even if "illegal violence" must be present within the petitioning nation to warrant intervention). It relies purely upon the whim of the committee. Meaning that, absent any clear criteria for approving a peacekeeping force, dictators could conceivably manipulate the WAPC into sending international reinforcements -- ostensibly in the name of combating "illegal violence" -- to prop up their regimes and intimidate other, legitimate, nonviolent resistance movements from demonstrating against or otherwise contesting the "legitimate government." Pardon me if I don't think "whatever the committee decides" to be sufficient for approving an international peacekeeping force within a member country.

The author apparently has not stopped grinding his axe in trying to link a repeal of Rights & Duties with a revision of the no-armies rule. It is not. going. to happen. Give it up already.

[Elke and Elba]

The author apparently has not stopped grinding his axe in trying to link a repeal of Rights & Duties with a revision of the no-armies rule. It is not. going. to happen. Give it up already.

And this must be re-emphasised, yet again.

While deceit is part and parcel of World Assembly life, I must say that the "repeal GAR#2 = dismantling no-army rule" is one of the most blatant ones around that must be stopped in its tracks whenever found.

[Railana]

GAR#2 can be repealed, but the "no army" rule can't. There hasn't been definitive black-and-white statements in the forums by the Hive Mind that they will if GAR#2 is repealed.

((OOC: That's true, but there have been statements by at least two mods (Fris and Mall) to the effect that they are willing to consider changing the "no army" rule. My aim here is to demonstrate the kind of proposal that would be legalized should the rule be repealed, in the hope that it might persuade people to support a rule change.))

I would like not to think this as a cheap shot for the Railanan/Aurelian delegation to repeal GAR#2, but there is no indication otherwise, and one cannot be blamed for suspecting you given the lengths the aforementioned delegation tried to get GAR#2 repealed.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What exactly do you mean by "cheap shot"? How is writing a sample proposal a "cheap shot"?

This is precisely why I cannot support the repeal of GA 2, or the replacement

This proposal would not be made legal by a repeal of GAR #2 or the passage of my replacement. It would require an additional rule change.

OOC:

tis an april fools joke i'll wager

No, it's not.

OOC: I don't see the point in posting this to the forum. You are not going to get any useful feedback: do you really think that people who have proved themselves incapable of reading so far as the second line of your post are also going to be providing valuable insights on the nuances of SSR?

((OOC: I'm aware that many will categorically oppose this proposal, but I'm hoping that at least some people will be able to provide constructive criticism.))

The sole issue at stake is the complete intransigence of the game staff when it comes to even considering listening to dissent about the rule. Given they don't really read the forum, posting a draft in the forum isn't going to make a difference to that.

((OOC: I intend to use this in the context of a discussion about the rules change; the mods will have to read it then.))

Broadly speaking, do you intend the term "illegal violence" in Clause 3 to encompass all violence that is illegal in the member state in question; or violent violations of international laws passed by the WA only? In other words, are member states going to be requesting WA intervention against all violent insurgencies, including (possibly rare, but theoretically possible) rebel groups who conduct violence only against combatant government forces and otherwise respect all WA law relating to human rights and war conduct? Or do you envision this being limited to action against those insurgent forces who demonstrably commit atrocities in the course of their rebellion?

That's a good question. I think the safest answer here is that "illegal violence" should refer to "violence illegal under international law". That would limit the scope of potential intervention, but at least we won't run the risk of the World Assembly propping up dictators against legitimate freedom fighters trying to take down an oppressive regime.

Good point. It never clarifies what illegal violence is. It also does not specify which situations would demand such a remedy (or even if "illegal violence" must be present within the petitioning nation to warrant intervention). It relies purely upon the whim of the committee. Meaning that, absent any clear criteria for approving a peacekeeping force, dictators could conceivably manipulate the WAPC into sending international reinforcements -- ostensibly in the name of combating "illegal violence" -- to prop up their regimes and intimidate other, legitimate, nonviolent resistance movements from demonstrating against or otherwise contesting the "legitimate government." Pardon me if I don't think "whatever the committee decides" to be sufficient for approving an international peacekeeping force within a member country.

The lack of criteria for intervention is also a legitimate concern. I've added the following:

• a violent non-state actor is present and operating within the member state, and
  the legitimate government of the member state does not have the capacity to maintain public order and safety as
• a result of the actions of the violent non-state actor,

The author apparently has not stopped grinding his axe in trying to link a repeal of Rights & Duties with a revision of the no-armies rule. It is not. going. to happen. Give it up already.

While deceit is part and parcel of World Assembly life, I must say that the "repeal GAR#2 = dismantling no-army rule" is one of the most blatant ones around that must be stopped in its tracks whenever found.

((OOC: I'm not sure why you're both so confident that a rule change will never occur. Part of the point of this proposal is to demonstrate how the rule could be changed with no ill effects.))

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

GAR#2 can be repealed, but the "no army" rule can't. There hasn't been definitive black-and-white statements in the forums by the Hive Mind that they will if GAR#2 is repealed.

((OOC: That's true, but there have been statements by at least two mods (Fris and Mall) to the effect that they are willing to consider changing the "no army" rule. My aim here is to demonstrate the kind of proposal that would be legalized should the rule be repealed, in the hope that it might persuade people to support a rule change.))

Oh, you're not persuading many. This proposal is a mess -- from all the muddled language about "non-state actors" (now, are these supposed to be your regular, run-of-the-mill rioters, looters and criminals, or are they what WACTA considers them to be: terrorists? As far as I know, peacekeepers are not counterterrorism forces; they're simple reinforcements sent in to restore order after a conflict...you might want to clean that up), to the folly of declaring that whatever government holds the WA seat is the "legitimate government" (a game of musical chairs does not a "legitimate government" make).

Moreover, you have not demonstrated why WA involvement is even necessary here. Nations are still capable of forming multinational forces to aid beleaguered countries in times of crisis; why do they need a permission slip from some committee to go in and help their friends? (And if they don't need one, then what's the point of creating one?)

Good point. It never clarifies what illegal violence is. It also does not specify which situations would demand such a remedy (or even if "illegal violence" must be present within the petitioning nation to warrant intervention). It relies purely upon the whim of the committee. Meaning that, absent any clear criteria for approving a peacekeeping force, dictators could conceivably manipulate the WAPC into sending international reinforcements -- ostensibly in the name of combating "illegal violence" -- to prop up their regimes and intimidate other, legitimate, nonviolent resistance movements from demonstrating against or otherwise contesting the "legitimate government." Pardon me if I don't think "whatever the committee decides" to be sufficient for approving an international peacekeeping force within a member country.

The lack of criteria for intervention is also a legitimate concern. I've added the following:

• a violent non-state actor is present and operating within the member state, and
  the legitimate government of the member state does not have the capacity to maintain public order and safety as
• a result of the actions of the violent non-state actor,

Doesn't really solve the problem. It confuses what peacekeepers are supposed to be (post-conflict "cleanup" forces) with what a lot of people mistake them for (world police). Peacekeepers are not all-purpose forces intended to combat whatever evil is threatening a country's stability (and still, I have no idea what "non-state actors" are); they aren't even combat forces. They are intended specifically to secure humanitarian relief and to help quell lawlessness and civil disorder that is so common after wars and rebellions.

And, dictators can still use this mechanism as a means of gaining a tacit "seal of approval" for their regimes in times of revolution.

The author apparently has not stopped grinding his axe in trying to link a repeal of Rights & Duties with a revision of the no-armies rule. It is not. going. to happen. Give it up already.

While deceit is part and parcel of World Assembly life, I must say that the "repeal GAR#2 = dismantling no-army rule" is one of the most blatant ones around that must be stopped in its tracks whenever found.

((OOC: I'm not sure why you're both so confident that a rule change will never occur. Part of the point of this proposal is to demonstrate how the rule could be changed with no ill effects.))

You need to try harder. This proposal is still plagued by its share of them.

[Railana]

Oh, you're not persuading many. This proposal is a mess -- from all the muddled language about "non-state actors" (now, are these supposed to be your regular, run-of-the-mill rioters, looters and criminals, or are they what WACTA considers them to be: terrorists?

Neither, actually. They are rebel groups, insurgencies, and the like - organizations that use illegal violence to start civil wars and overthrow governments.

As far as I know, peacekeepers are not counterterrorism forces; they're simple reinforcements sent in to restore order after a conflict...you might want to clean that up)

Peacekeeping has traditionally been limited to enforcement of the terms of a peace agreement, yes. The definition has broadened over time, though, to include active engagement in conflict. ((OOC: Basically, this resolution is supposed to enable the World Assembly to create something like the ISAF. Is ISAF a "peacekeeping mission"? It seems to depend on who you ask.)) I'm open to alternate wording.

to the folly of declaring that whatever government holds the WA seat is the "legitimate government" (a game of musical chairs does not a "legitimate government" make).

((OOC: I see your point, but unfortunately, given the way this game is designed, that seems to be the only objective criteria the World Assembly can use to make a determination of legitimacy in the context of a proposal like this one. I'd be happy to hear alternate solutions.))

Moreover, you have not demonstrated why WA involvement is even necessary here. Nations are still capable of forming multinational forces to aid beleaguered countries in times of crisis; why do they need a permission slip from some committee to go in and help their friends? (And if they don't need one, then what's the point of creating one?)

To add legitimacy to the military intervention. ((OOC: Why did the US bother going to the UN to get the support of the Security Council before invading Iraq and Afghanistan?))

Doesn't really solve the problem. It confuses what peacekeepers are supposed to be (post-conflict "cleanup" forces) with what a lot of people mistake them for (world police). Peacekeepers are not all-purpose forces intended to combat whatever evil is threatening a country's stability (and still, I have no idea what "non-state actors" are); they aren't even combat forces. They are intended specifically to secure humanitarian relief and to help quell lawlessness and civil disorder that is so common after wars and rebellions.

See above.

And, dictators can still use this mechanism as a means of gaining a tacit "seal of approval" for their regimes in times of revolution.

Not really. Any rebel groups targeted under this proposal must be engaged in violence illegal under international law, which shouldn't be permitted anyways.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Mallorea and Riva]

If you want to discuss the No Army Rule then please make a Discussion thread in Moderation about it.

[Railana]

If you want to discuss the No Army Rule then please make a Discussion thread in Moderation about it.

((OOC: We're not discussing the no army rule. We're discussing the merits of a proposal that would be legal should the no army rule be repealed.))

[The Dark Star Republic]

If you want to discuss the No Army Rule then please make a Discussion thread in Moderation about it.

When have WA rules ever been discussed via Moderation Discussion threads? The convention has always been to discuss them in this forum.

[Mallorea and Riva]

If you want to discuss the No Army Rule then please make a Discussion thread in Moderation about it.

When have WA rules ever been discussed via Moderation Discussion threads? The convention has always been to discuss them in this forum.

And now we have the relatively new idea of Discussion threads where such discussions can take place. Either way since the Author doesn't wish to do so as it relates to this proposal please keep such discussion out of the thread.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Peacekeeping has traditionally been limited to enforcement of the terms of a peace agreement, yes. The definition has broadened over time, though, to include active engagement in conflict. ((OOC: Basically, this resolution is supposed to enable the World Assembly to create something like the ISAF. Is ISAF a "peacekeeping mission"? It seems to depend on who you ask.))

ISAF is not a peacekeeping mission and rarely are they ever referred to as peacekeeping force. If you want something like ISAF then this is not a discussion about peacekeeping at all, but a WA army. Something most members of the WA would stringently oppose. (Remember, they only voted down Prohibition of UN Military because they liked the idea of an NSUN Peacekeeping Force, not because they necessarily wanted UN forces to start intervening in various theaters of conflict, which is what this proposal would do.)

And, dictators can still use this mechanism as a means of gaining a tacit "seal of approval" for their regimes in times of revolution.

Not really.

No? You don't think the NS version of Syria could demonstrate to the WA's satisfaction that rebel groups are committing illegal violence and that it requires WA "peacekeepers" to help quell the insurrection? Being pulled into civil wars or propping up despicable regimes like Syria are likely not what WA members would want their "peacekeeping" force to be involved with.

To add legitimacy to the military intervention.

Not to mention false legitimacy for the petitioning party, no matter how scummy or dictatorial or hostile to human rights they may be.

In short, you're not doing yourself any favors by proposing a rule change so that the WA could be dragged into quagmires or reinforce the regimes of tinpot dictators. Not only are you damaging the popularity of a possible rule change, you're imperiling your own repeal of Rights & Duties, if opponents could link it to this. My advice: either convert this entirely to a "traditional" peacekeeping proposal, and drop any language that could be mistaken for lending credibility to scumbags, or just drop it altogether.

[Railana]

ISAF is not a peacekeeping mission and rarely are they ever referred to as peacekeeping force. If you want something like ISAF then this is not a discussion about peacekeeping at all, but a WA army.

Fair enough. I don't have an problem with using alternative wording. I'll make an appropriate change.

Something most members of the WA would stringently oppose. (Remember, they only voted down Prohibition of UN Military because they liked the idea of an NSUN Peacekeeping Force, not because they necessarily wanted UN forces to start intervening in various theaters of conflict, which is what this proposal would do.)

Well, we'll see about that. The UN was a long time ago. Plus, there are no national sovereignty concerns posed by this proposal, because WA forces would only be able to intervene with the consent of the government in power.

No? You don't think the NS version of Syria could demonstrate to the WA's satisfaction that rebel groups are committing illegal violence and that it requires WA "peacekeepers" to help quell the insurrection? Being pulled into civil wars or propping up despicable regimes like Syria are likely not what WA members would want their "peacekeeping" force to be involved with.

That's a legitimate concern. I've tried to address that by requiring member states to be in "full compliance with international law, including but not limited to international human rights and humanitarian law" in order to qualify for military intervention.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Sionis Prioratus]

OOC: I just came to see how this bans abortion and gay marriage. I'm sure it's there somewhere.

[Tinfect]

[*]Establishes the World Assembly Security Council with the following mandate:

1. To identify member states that could benefit from military intervention by the World Assembly as determined by the Council, and to evaluate requests from member states for such intervention, in accordance with the following criteria for such potential intervention:
   
   1. a violent non-state actor is present and operating within the member state,
   2. the legitimate government of the member state does not have the capacity to maintain public order and safety as a result of the actions of the violent non-state actor, and
   3. the legitimate government is in full compliance with international law, including but not limited to international human rights and humanitarian law;

"Ah, good, that means we will not have to assist you.
Overall, the Imperium has no objections to the goals of this proposal, other than that it blatantly contradicts World Assembly Law."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Overall, the Imperium has no objections to the goals of this proposal, other than that it blatantly contradicts World Assembly Law.

That's just the point. It may not be WA Law for very much longer. The rules are likely to change and Rights and Duties might go down the drain as well. Then the time will be ripe for a new era of WA intervention and meddling.

@Railana: change "legitimate government" to "de jure government." G-R made that suggestion in another WA military draft thread, and I think it's a good one. Much more direct, with fewer RP uncertainties, etc.

[Railana]

@Railana: change "legitimate government" to "de jure government." G-R made that suggestion in another WA military draft thread, and I think it's a good one. Much more direct, with fewer RP uncertainties, etc.

((OOC: Excellent idea, though I think I'll substitute "recognized" for "de jure".))

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: What happens if the law is unclear, for example, with the Jacobite succession claims made after the Glorious Revolution in 1688?