Wallenburg wrote:"Excellent first draft, ambassador! I have some questions about this proposal, and will carefully observe it for contractual loopholes, but beforehand I would appreciate your input on these inquiries:
"How are militias and armed civilians considered in this resolution, in contrast to professional or enlisted troops?
"Troops and armed civilians are almost certain to mix with unarmed civilians in military procedures such as evacuations and other actions intended to protect civilians. However, these often protect armed forces as enemy troops must respect the noncombatant status of unarmed civilians. Would this be considered the use of a 'living shield', and if so, how do you propose to protect civilian interest to evacuate war zones?"
"Much appreciated! Let me address those issues in turn:
"Militias would be classified in the same manner as normal militaries, being "belligerents" or "hostile parties". Civilians armed and behaving thusly in an active conflict are likely to be considered irregular combatants, and would, then, fall under the same perspective as a hostile party. All in all, I don't think, if I tweak my inconsistent wording, that there would be a practical difference.
"The term "intentional" would probably clear that up. In general, evacuating citizens aren't viable targets, and any military oversight would probably be a low priority target. Theoretically, one could utilize weapons, such as firearms, that will only harm single targets, enabling your troops to attack the enemy troops in this situation without hurting the civilians. That would be in contrast to using a less discriminate weapon, such as artillery.
"In the general way of things, it is expected, thanks to the nightmare of Universal Jurisdiction, that member states will take care of any prosecution necessary, which means that a certain amount of determination of mens rea will be required on behalf of the judge and jury, which this Assembly just can't make safe allowances for. As we all know, accidents happen. Real accidents, not the twisted versions that the Helltankian ambassador suggests. The practical application of these laws must consider that, as the law itself can't make every nuanced exception for every situation."
Normlpeople wrote:Clover nodded "War is hell. That is quite literally the only point you have made I am in agreement with. Your defense of this appalling practice, in addition to your admission of torturing and mistreating POWs, pretty much kills your credibility here."
Turning to Ambassador Bell "Forgive me if I am misreading or misinterpreting this, however, would families of soldiers living on bases, or civilians living in cities that pop up around military bases, be considered voluntarily shields for merely refusing to leave thier homes? I would hope that unless they engaged in some sort of activity to shield, it would not be the case."
"I don't perceive that to be the case, though after the battle, the invading nation could certainly offer to resettle them or even detain them for questioning as to their exact intention. I would imagine that, given the language used in the draft, there would have to be an active participation on the civilians part, forced or otherwise, that goes beyond simply living on the outskirts of an established base. Most bases are large enough that, should they come under attack, the worst of the damage won't stray into civilian neighborhoods. Its something of a design consideration in many places."
