[DEFEATED] Repeal: GA#6 Humanitarian Transport

[Luna Amore]

Original resolution

Repeal: GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 6 Humanitarian Transport

Repeal "Humanitarian Transport"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that transports and vessels moving humanitarian supplies or Prisoners of War (PoW) are deserving of special protection;

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the possibility that parties in a conflict could use PoW or humanitarian supplies as shields for military activities;

BELIEVING THEREFORE that international law governing the transport of PoW or humanitarian supplies should not encourage the abuse of 'humanitarian' status for military purposes;

REGRETTING that General Assembly Resolution # 6 permits "humanitarian transports" to field weapons;

FURTHER REGRETTING that General Assembly Resolution # 6 merely 'discourages' the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes or PoW in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations;

BELIEVING that it may be too risky and/or impractical to attempt to hail, board, inspect and seize the cargo of a transport carrying heavy defensive armaments, a transport whose cargoes are predominantly military, a transport flying high over the battle zone or in space, or a transport whose presence might serve to flush out the position of ones' own forces;

FURTHER BELIEVING that this may lead to humanitarian cargoes and PoW being used as 'human shields' for military activities, as General Assembly Resolution # 6 prohibits nations from immediately engaging what would otherwise be valid military targets;

CONCLUDING that it may have been better if General Assembly Resolution # 6 had outlawed the placement of weapons on 'humanitarian transports' and the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes or PoW in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations;

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution # 6.

The resolution has been submitted! Delegates can endorse it here!

[Imperium Anglorum]

No objections to repeal argument, but then again, I'm not familiar with the resolution. Preliminary support due to it being a repeal of a non-blocker. Though, I would ask the Ambassador from Knootoss for textual evidence in support of her repeal.

[Knootoss]

"Of course, darling! As already stated, the original resolution can be found here. For ease of reference, it is reproduced here with the relevant bits highlighted."

The World Assembly,

CONCERNED about the absence of international standards governing the conduct of nations in international territory,

ACKNOWLEDGING that nations transport basic humanitarian supplies, including doctors and medical supplies as well as prisoners of war and other non-combatants through international territories,

CONCERNED that vessels moving humanitarian supplies or prisoners of war by land, air, sea, or space could also be used to move other cargo used in the conflict at the same time,

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the possibility that parties in a conflict could use prisoners of war or humanitarian supplies as shields for other military activities,

OBSERVING that no international standard has been established to make it easier for nations to identify and recognize other vessels used to transport prisoners, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies,

1. CONSIDERS items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations, including prisoners of war, doctors and other medical experts, medical supplies, basic food and water supplies, sick and wounded combatants, and civilians to be humanitarian cargoes,

2. DISCOURAGES the practice of transporting humanitarian cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations,

3. RECOMMENDS that when possible, that exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport humanitarian cargoes,

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid,

5. URGES nations to follow this code of conduct and to inform the international community what standards they have adopted to identify their humanitarian transports,

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

7. REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to not initiate hostilities with any other vessel or targets unless first attacked and to not actively support offensive campaigns,

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

9. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection,

10. MANDATES that any searches conducted on humanitarian vessels must not put those vessels or their passengers or crew in any danger,

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes,

13. REQUESTS nations develop separate agreements to strengthen the basic goal protecting humanitarian cargoes,

14. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that as more nations agree to standards of practice making transporting humanitarian cargoes safer, more nations will provide humanitarian aid.

Contribution by,

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Of course, darling! As already stated, the original resolution can be found here. For ease of reference, it is reproduced here with the relevant bits highlighted."

Thank you. It's those relevant bits which count.

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

The Empire agrees that this does allow humanitarian vessels to defensive weapons. And although the connotation given by 'field weapons' is of large and bulky cannons, the target resolution is sufficiently imprecise to allow that interpretation.

However, the second phrase in clause 6 of the target resolution does state that these protections are only afforded given that humanitarian vessels 'are only carrying humanitarian cargoes'. The Empire does not see how 'General Assembly Resolution # 6 prohibits the destruction of what would otherwise be valid military targets' — unless you are to classify the defensive weapons on these humanitarian vessels as cargo.

Furthermore, the target resolution also states: '11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest, 12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes', along with a requirement that humanitarian vessels submit immediately to inspection. Would not these clauses ameliorate your delegation's concerns about how Resolution 6 prevents the destruction of valid military targets under the banner of a humanitarian mission?

[Knootoss]

"Oh, I very much wish they did! Unfortunately, the resolution allows ships carrying military cargo to be flagged as 'Humanitarian', necessitating inspections, while they should be considered legitimate targets for a submarine or an anti aircraft gun. And such mixed cargo vessels may indeed have 'human shields' on them. Tragic. The WA has so many well-meaning people in it. I just know it can do better!"

Contribution by,

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Jarish Inyo]

What is considered a 'defensive' weapon? And couldn't a 'defensive' weapon easily be turned into an offensive weapon?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Opposed: whether the argument has merit or not, don't believe the orcs will allow a replacement to pass, so in this case something is better than nothing."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Old Hope]

"Oh, I very much wish they did! Unfortunately, the resolution allows ships carrying military cargo to be flagged as 'Humanitarian', necessitating inspections, while they should be considered legitimate targets for a submarine or an anti aircraft gun. And such mixed cargo vessels may indeed have 'human shields' on them. Tragic. The WA has so many well-meaning people in it. I just know it can do better!"

Contribution by,

(Image)

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Ahem.

6. DECLARES the right of humanitarian vessels to maintain defensive weapons and to have free and safe passage in international territories by prohibiting nations from firing upon vessels that are only carrying humanitarian cargoes,

The ship has military cargo on it? Then it isn't protected by this clause...

12. PROHIBITS searching vessels from firing upon any humanitarian vessel that has provided its cargo manifest, allowed a search, and surrendered any non-humanitarian cargoes,

It might be protected by this clause, however, this is only in regard to searching vessels.
If you encounter a humanitarian vessel that openly transports military cargo you can
1.submit yourself under clause 12 by asking for a search
2.attack the vessel
3.leave it alone
If you encounter a humanitarian vessel that you suspect to transport military cargo, you can request a search:

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

The humanitarian vessel has to accept,

9. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection,

and you can seize the cargo

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

... and what remains is humanitarian cargo.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed: whether the argument has merit or not, don't believe the orcs will allow a replacement to pass, so in this case something is better than nothing."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

"I concur with Ms. Chinmusic's assessment. I hope the new Knootossian ambassador considers the difficulty of replacement before moving forward with this, or better yet, delays this until the atmosphere of the General Assembly is less bloodthirsty."

[Knootoss]

"Oh darlings, I thank you so very much for all of your constructive comments. I've sprinkled a bit of explanation on top of the existing resolution to deal with the comments from Old Hope and Imperium Anglorum. I'd be happy to explain them further in this discussion if you like! You are wonderful people to talk to, after all, and it's great to get to know you in the heat of resolution-crafting like this!

And I'll be happy to work on a replacement after the repeal's passed."

Contribution by,

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Imperium Anglorum]

8. AUTHORIZES any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel to request, if there is sufficient cause, the humanitarian vessel to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection,

The humanitarian vessel has to accept,

9. FURTHER REQUIRES humanitarian vessels to present a cargo manifest and to submit to the above inspection,

and you can seize the cargo

11. AUTHORIZES parties searching humanitarian vessels to seize any non-humanitarian cargoes, as defined in clause 1, including items listed on the cargo manifest,

... and what remains is humanitarian cargo.

What I believe that the ambassador was claiming that those ships, before searching, are indistinguishable from non-humanitarian vessels, if you allow them guns. Thus, it would be folly to force nations to send ships to search them, especially when most nations do not have large surface fleets capable of searching such vessels. (OOC: WWI Germany and its submarines can't go out there and search vessels when the US and UK say everything they send over is 'humanitarian')

I would support a replace attempt which forced ships to be certified as humanitarian before leaving port and fly a WA flag (is that legal or not, not sure) whilst sailing — as well as carry no arms whatsoever.

[Separatist Peoples]

"A general requirement of an internationally-recognizable symbol denoting humanitarian purposes would likely be sufficient, which removes the issue of picking a single symbol for all to use. However, that's really neither here not there. I'm not sure any replacement will pass in the current atmosphere."

[Knootoss]

((OOC: Imperium Anglorum is correct, and I am a bit of a WWI enthusiast IRL. The resolution that's currently on the books allows for all kinds of Lusitania-style perfidy: transport your military cargoes in a cruise liner, arm said cruise liner, stick some neutral civilians on board and then dare your opponents to do something about it. Previous incidents by the way had seen such armed merchants engaging submarines that surfaced to 'inspect' these vessels with their defensive weaponry, seeing how a surfaced sub's completely vulnerable to any kind of deck gun at such ranges as are required for boarding.

And suppose that a ship is carrying 1,000 enemy marines and two boxes of asperin. Mixed cargo, flagged therefore as 'humanitarian transport'. Is the submarine supposed to take all those marines on board and then let the cargo vessel continue merrily on its way with its two boxes of asperin?

TLDR: It's not feasible for submarines or small frigates to board larged armed, mixed-cargo vessels, inspect their stuff and then let them go. The procedure that is outlined in #GA6 becomes even more preposterous when you consider that it also applies to aircraft and spacecraft, which cannot readily be boarded. And the Lusitania incident and similar incidents show that this is not some far-fetched scenario perpetrated by a rogue state, but a tactic that's been deployed IRL by world empires.

And I wish the WA was in a belligerent mood, but honestly, it's not. Tens of thousands of people tend not to be captive to 'moods' like that, much though WA regulars would like to think otherwise.))

[Imperium Anglorum]

From the opinions and arguments given by Knootoss, we are in support of this proposal to repeal 'Humanitarian Transport'. The Empire supports a replacement along the lines of pre-certification of humanitarian status before setting sail as well as a prohibition of any sort of weapons on humanitarian ships.

OOC: Another WWI enthusiast? Me too

[Knootoss]

((Any other comments? I might go for a trial run if there aren't any!))

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I might go for a trial run

Go for it.

[Knootoss]

The proposal has been resubmitted and is likely to do better this time. Endorsements are welcome!

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

The proposal has been resubmitted and is likely to do better this time. Endorsements are welcome!

Are you planning a replacement?

[Knootoss]

"Thank you for your approval, dear! And I'll be happy to work on a replacement, though I am too humble a lady to insist that a replacement should ultimately be submitted by the Knootian delegation or whether it can be produced in cooperation with that delegation by someone still eager to earn their badge. The principle ways in which the original resolution can be fixed are already outlined pretty clearly in the repeal, though!"

Contribution by,

Ambassador Rozemijn Reuvelkamp
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[CreepyCut]

Looks good to me.

Approved, darling.

[Knootoss]

I woke up to seeing this at vote! Just lodged my own FOR!

[Thalassonia]

The Thalassonian government formally announces its displeasure at the repeal of the Resolution in question, with concern that having no standing law increases the threat to all vessels of any value, but particularly those of humanitarian need, to those of a less scrupulous nature. And that such a repeal leaves a window of opportunity for such actions to occur without the World Assembly having a legal standing point to quickly act upon in counterbalance.

We are also in disagreement that while conflict could result in parties using civilians, non-combatants, or PoWs as "shields", that recourse is not already given to condemn such atrocious actions either through the use of GA Resolution #6 or other GA resolutions.

As such, since the repeal in our opinion, leave fleet operations more vulnerable rather than safer, we must vote against such a proposal.

[Bananaistan]

I believe the biggest issue with the target resolution is that it defines humanitarian cargoes but not humanitarian vessels. This renders the resolution ineffective. However, this is not an argument made in the repeal and it also means that members states are free to define humanitarian vessels are those containing exclusively humanitarian cargoes rather a vessel with both humanitarian cargoes and military supplies/personnel. Bananaistan is, therefore, opposed.

[Knootoss]

The Thalassonian government formally announces its displeasure at the repeal of the Resolution in question, with concern that having no standing law increases the threat to all vessels of any value, but particularly those of humanitarian need, to those of a less scrupulous nature. And that such a repeal leaves a window of opportunity for such actions to occur without the World Assembly having a legal standing point to quickly act upon in counterbalance.

We are also in disagreement that while conflict could result in parties using civilians, non-combatants, or PoWs as "shields", that recourse is not already given to condemn such atrocious actions either through the use of GA Resolution #6 or other GA resolutions.

As such, since the repeal in our opinion, leave fleet operations more vulnerable rather than safer, we must vote against such a proposal.

A repeal necessarily comes before the introduction of new legislation. If a 'window of opportunity' were a true concern then no international law, now matter how rotten, could ever be improved. I would ask the Thalassonian government to reconsider its vote and instead work productively with us to create an improved replacement, which can be introduced within days of the old resolutions' repeal.

I believe the biggest issue with the target resolution is that it defines humanitarian cargoes but not humanitarian vessels. This renders the resolution ineffective. However, this is not an argument made in the repeal and it also means that members states are free to define humanitarian vessels are those containing exclusively humanitarian cargoes rather a vessel with both humanitarian cargoes and military supplies/personnel. Bananaistan is, therefore, opposed.

So you agree with us that the target resolution is ineffective, but vote against the repeal because it doesn't phrase the argument as you'd have liked? ... okay. For the record, I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter how member states define humanitarian vessels, as the protections of the World Assembly extend to every vessel carrying humanitarian cargoes, even if that vessel is otherwise a heavily armed warship. I'd say we are in agreement, therefore.

[Bananaistan]

So you agree with us that the target resolution is ineffective, but vote against the repeal because it doesn't phrase the argument as you'd have liked? ... okay.

One wouldn't really appreciate the condescension apparent in in your reply. Your arguments don't stack up and simply haven't convinced me. It's more than a phrasing issue as it's been completely omitted.

For the record, I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter how member states define humanitarian vessels, as the protections of the World Assembly extend to every vessel carrying humanitarian cargoes, even if that vessel is otherwise a heavily armed warship. I'd say we are in agreement, therefore.

Perhaps you could point this out to me as I seem to have missed the clause in the target resolution establishing this principle.