[draft/idea] Private army legislation

[Bears Armed]

Assuming this is OOC: the terms "armed forces" or, especially, "combatant" really should be incredibly apparent as including guns for hire, as they are still combatants and forces which are armed. It would take a special kind of dictionary wank to make that argument effectively. As in, the kind people ignore anyway.

OOC: "combtatant", I'll agree with you about, but restricting application of the term "armed forces" to a nation's actual [official] government-employed armed fighting services doesn't really seem too much of a stretch to me: The term is sometimes used in that context in RL, after all...

[Caracasus]

Added a preamble. And yes, I still think this is an area that needs legislation.

Apart from anything else, nation states should be protected if they do everything within their power to ensure that a mercenary group acts as it should, but they don't. Non state military actors are under less control than armed forces, and legislation needs to be bought in regarding the responsibilities of nation states when hiring them for this very reason.

[Separatist Peoples]

Added a preamble. And yes, I still think this is an area that needs legislation.

Apart from anything else, nation states should be protected if they do everything within their power to ensure that a mercenary group acts as it should, but they don't. Non state military actors are under less control than armed forces, and legislation needs to be bought in regarding the responsibilities of nation states when hiring them for this very reason.

"Why should states be protected? If they chose to use a private force, which absolutely can be held to the same standards and control, why shouldn't they bear the burden of responsibility?"

[Caracasus]

Added a preamble. And yes, I still think this is an area that needs legislation.

Apart from anything else, nation states should be protected if they do everything within their power to ensure that a mercenary group acts as it should, but they don't. Non state military actors are under less control than armed forces, and legislation needs to be bought in regarding the responsibilities of nation states when hiring them for this very reason.

"Why should states be protected? If they chose to use a private force, which absolutely can be held to the same standards and control, why shouldn't they bear the burden of responsibility?"

Indeed, which is what this proposal seeks to clarify. A state cannot be held responsible if it is not aware of the actions required of it to ensure it is not held responsible.

Mercenary groups are not as controlled by an individual nation state as armed forces are. It is therefore important that states using mercenary groups (for example) illegally are held to account, and that states who attempt to follow the rule of law in hiring mercenary groups are protected, should through no fault of their own a mercenary group go rouge and commit an atrocity. If a state can prove that they took all reasonable precautions - making the group hired acknowledge and aware of the rule of international law, and research the group hired to ensure that they are likely to follow the rule of international law then they should not be punished if said mercenary group then goes rouge.

[Atomic Utopia]

"This is a good idea, and should the Honorable Ambassador make the proposal sufficiently loophole free and effective I will put my support behind it in my fullest."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Perhaps, Including a clause to the effect of; "Mandates, that Non-State Military Operatives found to be violating International Law, be removed from the Conflict"

[Caracasus]

OOC:
Perhaps, Including a clause to the effect of; "Mandates, that Non-State Military Operatives found to be violating International Law, be removed from the Conflict"

We like the idea of this, however how would the WA realistically be able to enforce this?

[Caracasus]

"This is a good idea, and should the Honorable Ambassador make the proposal sufficiently loophole free and effective I will put my support behind it in my fullest."

Can the good ambassador see any loopholes at the moment? We are, of course, in the continual process of re-wording this!

[Caracasus]

Assuming this is OOC: the terms "armed forces" or, especially, "combatant" really should be incredibly apparent as including guns for hire, as they are still combatants and forces which are armed. It would take a special kind of dictionary wank to make that argument effectively. As in, the kind people ignore anyway.

OOC: "combtatant", I'll agree with you about, but restricting application of the term "armed forces" to a nation's actual [official] government-employed armed fighting services doesn't really seem too much of a stretch to me: The term is sometimes used in that context in RL, after all...

Agreed. We feel that there is enough confusion around the termed "armed forces" in particular to merit such a distinction that this would provide. We also feel that especially as non-state military actors such as mercenary groups are a step removed from direct control by a nation state, we should provide legislation that sets out the responsibilities of nation states in ensuring that they live up to their responsibility of a WA nation at war; namely to uphold the international laws regarding warfare etc. passed by the WA.

We have edited a more focused draft.

[Jarish Inyo]

WA can't regulated private corporations, only governments. And since private military contractors are covered by other resolutions when they are employed by a government, the Government of Jarish Inyo sees this a redundant.

[Caracasus]

Bump