[DRAFT] Considerations for Occupations

[Araraukar]

"Generally, the occupation is to hold the area in trust until the rightful owner has reorganized sufficiently to assume control."

Who exactly would be the "rightful owner" in such a situation? And what if the people decide they want to return to the regime you just helped overthrow? I'm not trying to derail the discussion here, but I'm questioning the ratifying of occupation being rightful in the first place, in the WA laws.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Generally, the occupation is to hold the area in trust until the rightful owner has reorganized sufficiently to assume control."

Who exactly would be the "rightful owner" in such a situation? And what if the people decide they want to return to the regime you just helped overthrow? I'm not trying to derail the discussion here, but I'm questioning the ratifying of occupation being rightful in the first place, in the WA laws.

"Part of what an occupation does is allow time for a provisional government to be formed without causing a civil war. The sad fact is that without a law on the books, occupations are going to happen anyway, and in an almost entirely unregulated manner. When it comes down to it, occupations can be beneficial when conducted properly, which this law seeks to do. There is no way a ban on occupations would pass, and anything is better than a big gaping hole on the matter, considering the uncertain nature of WA legal jurisdiction in an unregulated occupation."

[Wallenburg]

"Benjamin, I suggest you decide whether you are talking about territory or territories."

"I wasn't aware the use of plural grammar somehow invalidated the clause or made it impossible to understand."

"It doesn't. It just reads better when you are consistent, Ambassador."

"Perhaps you should use 'Occupying sovereignties" to avoid this becoming a proposal that provides a framework for martial law?"

"An occupation is inherently using martial law. To use anything else implies an annexation to an occupation. Even if a civilian is heading the occupation effort in the form of a governor, an occupation is still inherently martial."

"Ah, I see. You have a good point there."

"I can support access by World Assembly organizations, but compelling occupying governments to permit entry of humanitarian organizations from nations outside of the World Assembly could produce problems, especially since these non-member states may abuse a "humanitarian" pretense to organize sinister action against the occupying government or its forces, or the occupied peoples themselves."

"If the abuse is such that it constitutes a war crime, existing law allows you to deal with the abuse properly, as they remove their protections. If their abuse is not such that it is a war crime, but is nonetheless distinctly not humanitarian, such as running drugs, there is no law preventing you from prosecuting those arrested. One must allow access to the organization, not give diplomatic immunity to the members."

"The reasoning there seems a little shady, but I suppose I can live with that."

"Again, should the occupying national government not have this power as well? There are plenty of unitary states where establishing a local government or governments in occupied territory would be impractical or unfamiliar, leading to issues of effective governance within the occupied territory."

"Because an occupation is inherently martial in nature. It is literally a military occupation. You are suggesting that a unitary state cannot have subsidiary local governments, which is untrue. A unitary state centralizes power at the national level, but still would require, in many cases, localized government, even if it is appointed by the national powers. Even if this does present difficulties for the occupying entity, occupations are meant to be temporary, and any difficulty in establishing them should likewise be temporary."

"I have been to nations with no local governments, Benjamin. They still had the capacity to occupy a large chunk of a neighboring nation. I do not suggest that unitary states cannot form local governments--after all, Wallenburg is a unitary state and has plenty of local governments--but rather that it would be a good idea to extend this power to tax occupied territories and their peoples to the occupying national government."

"I would suggest this addition, considering that this proposal implies that the government whose territory has been occupied still holds the right to sovereignty over the occupied territory, and therefore still owns all public property within the territory, including vital resources to humanitarian and war efforts alike."

"That is a fair criticism, which I shall certainly consider. I worry about that forming a situation akin to the Bajoran occupation, where the occupied territory is stripped of resources and abandoned. Certainly in this case, compensation should be given to the occupied territory. But I will concede that, regardless of the opposing philosophies, non-government property should absolutely be covered."

"Absolutely. Privately owned property should remain untouched or fully compensated. Public property...not so much. After all, the occupying forces are kind of at war with the government whose public property is being seized. Pilfering from someone you are shooting at is hardly something to be abhorred, especially in a kill-or-be-killed situation."

[Araraukar]

it would be a good idea to extend this power to tax occupied territories and their peoples to the occupying national government."

OOC: Would taxing in an "occupied area" fit into "domestic tax" policies? Because if so, WA can't really mandate it one way or another.

[Separatist Peoples]

it would be a good idea to extend this power to tax occupied territories and their peoples to the occupying national government."

OOC: Would taxing in an "occupied area" fit into "domestic tax" policies? Because if so, WA can't really mandate it one way or another.

OOC: it's not mandating it, just allowing it. No more.

[Araraukar]

OOC: it's not mandating it, just allowing it. No more.

OOC: Yeah, but I started wondering if WA nation forces being in control of a territory would trigger that requirement. Same as wondering about whether it'd trigger the full protection and demands to the occupying government of all the existing resolutions.

"Absolutely. Privately owned property should remain untouched or fully compensated. Public property...not so much. After all, the occupying forces are kind of at war with the government whose public property is being seized. Pilfering from someone you are shooting at is hardly something to be abhorred, especially in a kill-or-be-killed situation."

And where do you draw the line? Especially if what seems public to you is claimed to be owned by private citizens/businesses? (OOC: Think libraries, governmental buildings, etc.) What if all of the nation's natural resources are indeed privately owned? I can also see an issue with that in the case autocracy, if the ownership is tied to the person and not the position.

Then again, the winners of a military conflict ending up being the ones to pay reparations afterwards does sound like just desserts.

OOC: Mmmm... desserts... *drool*

[Wallenburg]

"Absolutely. Privately owned property should remain untouched or fully compensated. Public property...not so much. After all, the occupying forces are kind of at war with the government whose public property is being seized. Pilfering from someone you are shooting at is hardly something to be abhorred, especially in a kill-or-be-killed situation."

And where do you draw the line? Especially if what seems public to you is claimed to be owned by private citizens/businesses? (OOC: Think libraries, governmental buildings, etc.) What if all of the nation's natural resources are indeed privately owned? I can also see an issue with that in the case autocracy, if the ownership is tied to the person and not the position.

It should be pretty obvious when private entities are lying about ownership, since they won't be able to prove property rights. As to full private ownership of all national resources, you can't really do anything about that. With an autocracy, the whole "I am the state" stance clearly establishes property of the ruler as property of the government, and therefore public.

Then again, the winners of a military conflict ending up being the ones to pay reparations afterwards does sound like just desserts.

Why would the victors pay reparations?

OOC: Mmmm... desserts... *drool*

Yummy.

[Wrapper]

Then again, the winners of a military conflict ending up being the ones to pay reparations afterwards does sound like just desserts.

OOC: Mmmm... desserts... *drool*

OOC: Ahem... It's "just deserts". Just sayin'.

IC: Just observing here, that this whole thing looks a lot more complicated than we thought.

When a WA nation occupies the territory of a non-WA nation, who's to say whether that occupation is temporary or permanent? And from an external perspective, how is that any different from annexing a territory? We suppose it makes a difference because the WA does not have the authority to impose WA resolutions on non-members -- or, for that matter, puppet states with independent governments controlled by a WA nation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Ahem... It's "just deserts". Just sayin'.

OOC: But that's not as much fun. =P

When a WA nation occupies the territory of a non-WA nation, who's to say whether that occupation is temporary or permanent?

Indeed. And who's to say the occupied nation isn't in the WA as well? It's not like WA nations never go to war with one another.

[Oliver Phillipson]

Extract and utilize natural resources of an occupied area at discretion, provided they immediately tender receipts for equitable compensation to the rightful owners for seizure of any privately held natural resources and damages incurred during extraction, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

Define natural resource.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: it's not mandating it, just allowing it. No more.

OOC: Yeah, but I started wondering if WA nation forces being in control of a territory would trigger that requirement. Same as wondering about whether it'd trigger the full protection and demands to the occupying government of all the existing resolutions.

OOC: I think as soon as the WA nation has secured control over the area, but to be absolutely sure, it seems prudent to include.

"Absolutely. Privately owned property should remain untouched or fully compensated. Public property...not so much. After all, the occupying forces are kind of at war with the government whose public property is being seized. Pilfering from someone you are shooting at is hardly something to be abhorred, especially in a kill-or-be-killed situation."

And where do you draw the line? Especially if what seems public to you is claimed to be owned by private citizens/businesses? (OOC: Think libraries, governmental buildings, etc.) What if all of the nation's natural resources are indeed privately owned? I can also see an issue with that in the case autocracy, if the ownership is tied to the person and not the position.

"That's certainly a difficult conundrum, but when an individual uses personal property to further state ends, it is reasonable to assume the property is the state's, and therefore not private."

IC: Just observing here, that this whole thing looks a lot more complicated than we thought.

When a WA nation occupies the territory of a non-WA nation, who's to say whether that occupation is temporary or permanent? And from an external perspective, how is that any different from annexing a territory? We suppose it makes a difference because the WA does not have the authority to impose WA resolutions on non-members -- or, for that matter, puppet states with independent governments controlled by a WA nation.

"Thanks to Universal Jurisdiction, there's no supranational court to make that determination, but that is a failing of UJ, not this resolution. An annexation and an occupation are two very different operations with very different executions. For one, incorporation, be it termed reunification, annexation, or a political union, is a unilateral, political, and permanent change of territory, accompanied by the normalization of political institutions to match the mother country. An occupation is a purely military operation with a planned exit thanks to this proposal, which obliges nations to end an occupation within a reasonable timeframe after the end of hostilities. You can claim that this is a serious loophole to be exploited, but, thanks to Universal Jurisdiction, there's not a damn thing anybody can do to rectify a noncompliant nation, and a good faith reading of the clause is all that can be expected.

Additionally, an occupation does not necessarily entail a normalization of political institutions. This is because an occupation is a fundamentally military operation with vastly different end goals than one has with the permanent governance of territory. The act of having different laws and different treatment of individuals based on their status of being a native of an occupied area isn't a violation of the Charter on Civil Rights, because there is a non-arbitrary reason for doing so: they are not expected to be permanent citizens, and the territory will eventually exit the mother nation's control. So, the difference, internally or externally, between an annexation and an occupation has to do with the steps taken, or not taken, to unify the territory or to simply hold it in trust. Depending on the timetable, it would be pretty obvious that a nation has no intention of ending an occupation when they have stabilized and pacified the area post-conflict, and have continued to delay withdrawal despite this."

Indeed. And who's to say the occupied nation isn't in the WA as well? It's not like WA nations never go to war with one another.

"I had tried to write this to encompass both WA and non-WA nations. If both nations are in the WA, the notice that WA laws are in compliance shouldn't make a difference. If the occupied nation is not, then it covers that base."

[Separatist Peoples]

Extract and utilize natural resources of an occupied area at discretion, provided they immediately tender receipts for equitable compensation to the rightful owners for seizure of any privately held natural resources and damages incurred during extraction, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

But what if the natural resource is something of abundance? Or what if the nations citizens can create water and they willingly share it with us? Must we pay then?

"Is stealing something in great abundance still stealing, ambassador? Do you pay people for gifts in your nation? Yes then no, ambassador."

[Losthaven]

Worst proposal name ever.

[Wallenburg]

Worst proposal name ever.

"How constructive. Please, bless us further with your sagacious reservoirs of ambassadorial advice."

[Kaboomlandia]

OOC: I'm just going to point out a bit of a BBcode error in the draft - there should be [*] symbols in the lists to make the bullet points.

[Separatist Peoples]

Worst proposal name ever.

"Hah. Duly noted."

[Losthaven]

Worst proposal name ever.

"How constructive. Please, bless us further with your sagacious reservoirs of ambassadorial advice."

For as active as I am these days, you should be grateful that I bothered to post at all. I'm telling you, kids these days. In my day, we'd be lucky if we got more than a grunt and disinterested look from another ambassador. Frankly, we were thankful for that grunt! It beats not caring enough to even post, or being bludgeoned to death with a sabertooth tiger femur. Also, in my day we had to ride dinosaurs to get to and from the world assembly, which was known as the cave assembly back then, and we were thankful for that too. And it was uphill both ways and we had to wrestle Douria and Mousebumples in the Cage for the chance to get our proposals to queue. And this wasn't your pansy ass "entertainment" wrestling; we wrestled on pointy rocks wearing nothing but a squirrel-fur jock strap. People got hurt dammit!

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?

[Separatist Peoples]

"How constructive. Please, bless us further with your sagacious reservoirs of ambassadorial advice."

For as active as I am these days, you should be grateful that I bothered to post at all. I'm telling you, kids these days. In my day, we'd be lucky if we got more than a grunt and disinterested look from another ambassador. Frankly, we were thankful for that grunt! It beats not caring enough to even post, or being bludgeoned to death with a sabertooth tiger femur. Also, in my day we had to ride dinosaurs to get to and from the world assembly, which was known as the cave assembly back then, and we were thankful for that too. And it was uphill both ways and we had to wrestle Douria and Mousebumples in the Cage for the chance to get our proposals to queue. And this wasn't your pansy ass "entertainment" wrestling; we wrestled on pointy rocks wearing nothing but a squirrel-fur jock strap. People got hurt dammit!

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?

OOC: that was glorious!

[Araraukar]

Worst proposal name ever.

OOC: You know the comic book guy in Simpsons? That was totally said in his voice.

[Wallenburg]

"How constructive. Please, bless us further with your sagacious reservoirs of ambassadorial advice."

For as active as I am these days, you should be grateful that I bothered to post at all. I'm telling you, kids these days. In my day, we'd be lucky if we got more than a grunt and disinterested look from another ambassador. Frankly, we were thankful for that grunt! It beats not caring enough to even post, or being bludgeoned to death with a sabertooth tiger femur. Also, in my day we had to ride dinosaurs to get to and from the world assembly, which was known as the cave assembly back then, and we were thankful for that too. And it was uphill both ways and we had to wrestle Douria and Mousebumples in the Cage for the chance to get our proposals to queue. And this wasn't your pansy ass "entertainment" wrestling; we wrestled on pointy rocks wearing nothing but a squirrel-fur jock strap. People got hurt dammit!

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?

OOC: Oh, this is beautiful. I'm putting it in the awesome quotes thread.

[Wrapper]

For as active as I am these days, you should be grateful that I bothered to post at all. I'm telling you, kids these days. In my day, we'd be lucky if we got more than a grunt and disinterested look from another ambassador. Frankly, we were thankful for that grunt! It beats not caring enough to even post, or being bludgeoned to death with a sabertooth tiger femur. Also, in my day we had to ride dinosaurs to get to and from the world assembly, which was known as the cave assembly back then, and we were thankful for that too. And it was uphill both ways and we had to wrestle Douria and Mousebumples in the Cage for the chance to get our proposals to queue. And this wasn't your pansy ass "entertainment" wrestling; we wrestled on pointy rocks wearing nothing but a squirrel-fur jock strap. People got hurt dammit!

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?

Hmmm, one too many bludgeons to the head, eh?

[Separatist Peoples]

Extract and utilize natural resources of an occupied area at discretion, provided they immediately tender receipts for equitable compensation to the rightful owners for seizure of any privately held natural resources and damages incurred during extraction, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

Define natural resource.

OOC: don't edit a post after it's been replied to.

IC: "Do you really not know, or are you being deliberately obtuse? There is no court in the world incompetent enough to take that argument and consider it a good faith interpretation."

[Araraukar]

Define natural resource.

"Do you really not know, or are you being deliberately obtuse? There is no court in the world incompetent enough to take that argument and consider it a good faith interpretation."

Well, actually he has a fair point. Does "natural resource" cover plants and animals, or just minerals, oil and whatnot?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Do you really not know, or are you being deliberately obtuse? There is no court in the world incompetent enough to take that argument and consider it a good faith interpretation."

Well, actually he has a fair point. Does "natural resource" cover plants and animals, or just minerals, oil and whatnot?

"It would only cover those plants and animals that were owned, as compensation must be paid. Wild animals are not considered owned, and one cannot compensate for that which isn't owned in the first place. So, while animals can be considered, it's a pretty big difference between shooting deer and cattle. Plants, such as crops and timber, are considere similarly."

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Would taxing in an "occupied area" fit into "domestic tax" policies? Because if so, WA can't really mandate it one way or another.

If the territory is only occupied, rather than annexed outright, then I'd say that it didn't.

Wild animals are not considered owned

OOC: That depends on the nation's laws. In some countries animals of certain species might be regarded as property of the head-of-state (especially in systems of government, such as some forms of European Feudalism, where that person is presumed to own all of the land with the lesser 'landholders' merely his/her/its tenants), or as the property of whoever's land they're currently on (perhaps with laws against enticing them across the boundaries thereof...).... or animals (and plants) with special status in a major religion's teachings might be regarded as the property of a deity, with their clergy as his/her/its legal representatives in the matter...