[REPLACEMENT] On Conscientious Objection

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm sorry about the title. I hate using "On X" as a title, but I was struggling to find anything else that fit and was reasonably descriptive.

On Conscientious Objection
Furtherment of Democracy | Significant

Noting the need for manpower for military and paramilitary entities;

Concerned that this need may override the legitimate religious, moral, and personal contentious objections an individual might have while serving in a combat position;

Believing that no individual should be compelled to fight or kill contrary to those beliefs:

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines a conscientious objector as a conscripted individual with a proven history of religious, conscientious, or moral objections to armed conflict, specifically, or violence, in general;

Defines combat duties as those duties of military and paramilitary personnel that require direct participation in or exposure to battle, which may directly cause injury or death an individual.

Clarifies that the definition of combat duties shall exclude simulated training, administrative, medical, or support activities, or the operation of unarmed vehicles or equipment in an area where no routine or active fighting is expected.

Declares that no member state shall compel or coerce a conscientious objector to participate in combat duties, nor punitively penalize them for their status;

Maintains the right of member states to review a conscientious objector’s history and present state to ascertain the veracity of their claim;

Further allows member states to interview associates and family of a conscientious objector, provided their testimonies are given without coercion or duress;

Preserves the right of member states to conscript conscientious objectors for those activities which do not fall under the auspices of combat duties, or fall under the exceptions herein outlined;

Strongly encourages that member states consider potential consanguinity between conscientious objectors and belligerents when determining a conscientious objector’s service activities and area of deployment;

Clarifies that nothing in this law shall be construed to comment on or affect the legality therein of the institution of compulsory military service.

"A quick draft pieced together in response to Ambassador Parson's request for cooperation. I tried to maintain as much of the effect of Military Freedoms Act as I could, while leaving out contentious parts, such as the issues dealing with wars of aggression, and the need to measure consanguinity. The reason for excluding any drivel about wars of aggression is that what defines a war of aggression is such a muddled and subjective topic in many ways, it is probably best to eliminate it until a stand-alone resolution is capable of dealing with it.

"While I'd like to see conscription eliminated entirely, I believe this makes a reasonable compromise between national need and individual self-determination as a baseline. Nations are welcome to apply more stringent laws to their own conscription laws, after all."

[Mallorea and Riva]

Keep your grubby hands off of our military's conscription practices. A proven history of a moral objection to violence? Christ let's just exclude everyone from being drafted into combat roles, that should help prevent all war in member states.

[Separatist Peoples]

Keep your grubby hands off of our military's conscription practices. A proven history of a moral objection to violence? Christ let's just exclude everyone from being drafted into combat roles, that should help prevent all war in member states.

Bell smiles, "Ambassador, you realize this replacement is actually less restrictive than the one currently on the books?"

[Mallorea and Riva]

Keep your grubby hands off of our military's conscription practices. A proven history of a moral objection to violence? Christ let's just exclude everyone from being drafted into combat roles, that should help prevent all war in member states.

Bell smiles, "Ambassador, you realize this replacement is actually less restrictive than the one currently on the books?"

And which one is that?

OOC: Call me crazy but I can't find a resolution currently on the books that addresses this.

[Dayorus]

This appears to be a good idea.
If I may add, you may want to define the proposal a little more,
"Defines a conscientious objector as a conscripted individual who has a proven history of religious, conscientious, or moral objections to armed conflict, specifically, or violence, in general;",
as loopholes could be used to define someone as non-religious, or having no "moral" objections (IE: You aren't objecting for moral reasons).
I really want to see this go places.
Dayorus

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Call me crazy but I can't find a resolution currently on the books that addresses this.

OOC: You are crazy if you think you can operate as a moderator of WA law without knowing what WA law actually is.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: Call me crazy but I can't find a resolution currently on the books that addresses this.

OOC: You are crazy if you think you can operate as a moderator of WA law without knowing what WA law actually is.

Ohhh I was thinking of the other one which got repealed and forgot about that one entirely.

[Dayorus]

OOC: Call me crazy but I can't find a resolution currently on the books that addresses this.

OOC: You are crazy if you think you can operate as a moderator of WA law without knowing what WA law actually is.

Hold on...
You just copied omigodtheykilledkenny...?

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: You are crazy if you think you can operate as a moderator of WA law without knowing what WA law actually is.

Hold on...
You just copied omigodtheykilledkenny...?

What? No he was linking to the GA proposal compendium that Kenny has put together.

[Dayorus]

Hold on...
You just copied omigodtheykilledkenny...?

What? No he was linking to the GA proposal compendium that Kenny has put together.

"Votes For: 4,737
Votes Against: 2,925

Implemented Sat Feb 5 2011"
...

[Mallorea and Riva]

What? No he was linking to the GA proposal compendium that Kenny has put together.

"Votes For: 4,737
Votes Against: 2,925

Implemented Sat Feb 5 2011"
...

Yeah, that is a different proposal than the one in the opening post.

[Dayorus]

I did not read the draft closely enough.
I was under the impression that this would strengthen WA resolution 132, not render it less effective.
Support removed.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Call me crazy but I can't find a resolution currently on the books that addresses this.

OOC: You are crazy if you think you can operate as a moderator of WA law without knowing what WA law actually is.

OOC: In his arguable defense, I didn't make direct references to the repeal/replace plans IA and I had, and the title doesn't lend itself to the existing resolution's name.

I did not read the draft closely enough.
I was under the impression that this would strengthen WA resolution 132, not render it less effective.
Support removed.

"If you'd like the complete laundry list of issues with the original, I'll direct you here. This discussion should take place in the hypothetical scenario where the repeal has succeeded, or at least will succeed, the better to facilitate actual drafting criticism. I assure you, the original has some significant restrictions that make little logical sense, not the least of which is that whether a war is a war of aggression in a legal sense often has little bearing on how it is interpreted by opponents of the action. Making that stipulation only managed to clutter both the issue at hand and the courtrooms of member states."

[Caracasus]

I too, ambassador, would like to see conscription removed eventually. I have a couple of issues with this in its current form.

1) The ability for states to undermine legislation by creating "catch 22" legislation. A conscientious objector must have a history of opposing violence on moral/religious grounds. Nowhere does it state how a state would enforce this, or what burden of proof would be required. If I was to conscript soldiers and inspect for objectors, all I would have to do is require a burden of proof so high that the only way to be a conscientious objector would be to be judged a conscientious objector in the past by the state.

2) Definitions of non-combat roles.

As I am sure you are aware, the moral objection to military activities often encompass aiding any part of the war effort. Many conscientious objectors would still take issue with training exercises, providing non-military logistical support and so forth.

Other than the potential for those two issues to cause significant undermining of the spirit, if not the rule, of this legislation I'd definitely vote for this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

2) Definitions of non-combat roles.

As I am sure you are aware, the moral objection to military activities often encompass aiding any part of the war effort. Many conscientious objectors would still take issue with training exercises, providing non-military logistical support and so forth.

How I see it, Sir, is that CO-status is (OOC: As a UN Ambassador once said) 'the Right to Refuse to Kill'. I don't see much of a linkage between 'aiding the war effort', which is something that all citizens would need to do if their homeland is being attacked, and 'I refuse to get trained, go into service, or do any physical exertion ... uh, because I have an objection to such things ... I'm a pacifist!' when the day before, they weren't pacifists and were absolutely fine working in their steel factory.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'll be the first to rehash the category debate on this topic. I'm having a tough time seeing it as FoD, and I'm not sure the previous resolution on the topic should have been categorized as such either. Thoughts?

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'll be the first to rehash the category debate on this topic. I'm having a tough time seeing it as FoD, and I'm not sure the previous resolution on the topic should have been categorized as such either. Thoughts?

OOC: I agree with Ardchoille, Hack, and the other mods:

However, the argument for FoD was that the military is an ... arm? department? pawn? of government, and conscientious objection is essentially the citizen challenging a government decision about the practices of that (arm, department, government pawn). The (WA member's) government decides what may be done, in terms of whether the citizens will come, go, gather, vote, dance or stop eating takeaway. Challenging that is a political act.

If the government says, "okay, you've got a point, we'll accommodate that viewpoint in this fashion," they're increasing freedoms and it's FoD. If they say, "no way, the state requires that you do such-and-such", they're limiting freedoms and it's Political Stability.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'll be the first to rehash the category debate on this topic. I'm having a tough time seeing it as FoD, and I'm not sure the previous resolution on the topic should have been categorized as such either. Thoughts?

OOC: I agree with Ardchoille, Hack, and the other mods:

However, the argument for FoD was that the military is an ... arm? department? pawn? of government, and conscientious objection is essentially the citizen challenging a government decision about the practices of that (arm, department, government pawn). The (WA member's) government decides what may be done, in terms of whether the citizens will come, go, gather, vote, dance or stop eating takeaway. Challenging that is a political act.

If the government says, "okay, you've got a point, we'll accommodate that viewpoint in this fashion," they're increasing freedoms and it's FoD. If they say, "no way, the state requires that you do such-and-such", they're limiting freedoms and it's Political Stability.

I'm not sure that I buy that. Any human right can be interfered with by an arm of government, but disagreeing with the government on those issues does not make it a political freedoms issue. The FoD category deals with freedoms in how the government is run and your rights pertaining to its operation. I see this as a human rights issue first and foremost.

[Separatist Peoples]

I too, ambassador, would like to see conscription removed eventually. I have a couple of issues with this in its current form.

1) The ability for states to undermine legislation by creating "catch 22" legislation. A conscientious objector must have a history of opposing violence on moral/religious grounds. Nowhere does it state how a state would enforce this, or what burden of proof would be required. If I was to conscript soldiers and inspect for objectors, all I would have to do is require a burden of proof so high that the only way to be a conscientious objector would be to be judged a conscientious objector in the past by the state.

"That is easily adjusted by including the term "reasonable". Since members are required to obey resolutions in good faith, its really the best I can do without micromanaging."

2) Definitions of non-combat roles.

As I am sure you are aware, the moral objection to military activities often encompass aiding any part of the war effort. Many conscientious objectors would still take issue with training exercises, providing non-military logistical support and so forth.

Other than the potential for those two issues to cause significant undermining of the spirit, if not the rule, of this legislation I'd definitely vote for this.

"That's really a shame for them. The ambassador from the Imperium Anglorum summed up my thoughts quite nicely on that front. If a nation wishes to allow greater exceptions, than that is acceptable, but training and non-combat roles do not directly involve violence, and shouldn't be overburdening on an individual's moral compass. If it is, I imagine their objection to be so strenuous that they will happily accept the punishment for refusal to serve."

I'll be the first to rehash the category debate on this topic. I'm having a tough time seeing it as FoD, and I'm not sure the previous resolution on the topic should have been categorized as such either. Thoughts?

"I chose this category because of the originals', but since conscription is a civic duty akin to jury duty or voting, I can't see this being a Human Rights proposal, as it affects a political right, not a civil right."

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'll be the first to rehash the category debate on this topic. I'm having a tough time seeing it as FoD, and I'm not sure the previous resolution on the topic should have been categorized as such either. Thoughts?

"I chose this category because of the originals', but since conscription is a civic duty akin to jury duty or voting, I can't see this being a Human Rights proposal, as it affects a political right, not a civil right."

Doesn't that assume that serving in a combat role is in fact a civic duty and not a violation of your human rights?

[Separatist Peoples]

"I chose this category because of the originals', but since conscription is a civic duty akin to jury duty or voting, I can't see this being a Human Rights proposal, as it affects a political right, not a civil right."

Doesn't that assume that serving in a combat role is in fact a civic duty and not a violation of your human rights?

"Military service when called upon is a civic duty, not service in a combat role. I can absolutely see your point on the category, but, honestly, by that argument, anything in the FOD category could equally apply in Human Rights. When it comes down to it, compulsory service in the military is considered a duty that balances out the benefits of certain rights and services from the state. It isn't considered a human rights violation when an individual is subpoenaed to testify in court, or required to seat a jury, or face a lawful prison sentence. So neither would it be a human rights violation to compel an individual to serve another condition of their citizenship."

[Mallorea and Riva]

Doesn't that assume that serving in a combat role is in fact a civic duty and not a violation of your human rights?

"Military service when called upon is a civic duty, not service in a combat role. I can absolutely see your point on the category, but, honestly, by that argument, anything in the FOD category could equally apply in Human Rights. When it comes down to it, compulsory service in the military is considered a duty that balances out the benefits of certain rights and services from the state. It isn't considered a human rights violation when an individual is subpoenaed to testify in court, or required to seat a jury, or face a lawful prison sentence. So neither would it be a human rights violation to compel an individual to serve another condition of their citizenship."

OOC: Except that the RW UN disagrees and lists being a CO as a human right because it can violate the right to religious freedom which is fundamentally a human right, not a political one. I disagree that this would invalidate all rights under FOD, for example the right to vote is a right which has an impact upon how the government itself functions whereas being a CO does not. It may change a particular law in allowing CO's to exist but it is not a political action to declare oneself a CO.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Except that the RW UN disagrees and lists being a CO as a human right because it can violate the right to religious freedom which is fundamentally a human right, not a political one.

OOC: The UN also considers freedom of expression and assembly to be human rights; the WA considers them to be political rights (and doesn't consider the right to religious freedom to be either).

It may change a particular law in allowing CO's to exist but it is not a political action to declare oneself a CO.

Of course it is. It is fundamentally an act of political dissent.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: Except that the RW UN disagrees and lists being a CO as a human right because it can violate the right to religious freedom which is fundamentally a human right, not a political one.

OOC: The UN also considers freedom of expression and assembly to be human rights; the WA considers them to be political rights (and doesn't consider the right to religious freedom to be either).

It may change a particular law in allowing CO's to exist but it is not a political action to declare oneself a CO.

Of course it is. It is fundamentally an act of political dissent.

Why? I view it as primarily a religious act, not a political one.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why? I view it as primarily a religious act, not a political one.

OOC: Well good for you, but this proposal doesn't:

Defines a conscientious objector as a conscripted individual who has a proven history of religious, conscientious, or moral objections to armed conflict, specifically, or violence, in general;

You keep mentioning religion. If any WA resolutions grant a right to religious freedom, they're Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly, both of which are Furtherment of Democracy.

Additionally, your style of argument - making no reference to the proposal, to existing WA law, or to the previous rulings citing the collective opinion of the WA moderators at the time - and instead simply repeating that "I see it as" something different, is almost impossible to rebut. It's not very compelling.