[DEFEATED] Cluster Munitions Accord

by **Hobbesistan** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:12 pm

Draft 4

The esteemed General Assembly of this World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that unexploded, improperly placed, and intentionally disruptive cluster munitions injure, maim, and kill thousands of civilians yearly,

BELIEVING that action by the World Assembly is necessary to protect innocent civilians and combatants alike,

HOWEVER REAFFIRMING the right of nations, World Assembly or not, to defend themselves,

ACKNOWLEDGING that a large amount of unexploded ordnance after a conflict are cluster munitions,

DEFINING,
1) 'Cluster Munition' as any air, ground, or sea launched conventional explosive device that splits into smaller explosive submunitions,

2) 'Cluster Munition Delivery Device/Mechanism' as a device/mechanism designed to deliver cluster munitions to a target.

3) 'Dud / Dud Percentage' as a ordnance that fails to act as intended / detonate as designed, such as failing to explode upon hitting the ground in the case of a conventional bomb, and Dud Percentage as the percentage, per cluster munition dropped, of duds in a batch of dropped munitions.
HEREBY ENACTING,
1) Cluster Munitions shall be required to maintain some form of time-delay failsafe, such as a timer, that either sets off the device or renders itself inert in lack of the device performing its intended purpose

2) Cluster Munitions shall be required to maintain a dud rate no higher than 5% per dropped device.

3) Member States shall not possess, stockpile, purchase, sell, or otherwise involve the affairs of cluster munitions that do not meet the aforementioned standards set forth by this body.

Available Here

World Assembly Convention on Cluster Munitions
by hobbes(istan)

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: ?

RECOGNIZING that unexploded, improperly placed, and intentionally disruptive cluster munitions injure, maim, and kill dozens of civilians yearly,

BELIEVING that action by the World Assembly is necessary to protect innocent civilians and combatants alike,

HOWEVER REAFFIRMING the right of nations, World Assembly or not, to defend themselves,

ACKNOWLEDGING that a large amount of unexploded ordnance after a conflict are cluster munitions, particularly cluster mines,

DEFINING,

1) 'Cluster Munition' as any air, ground, or sea launched explosive device that splits into smaller submunitions,

2) 'Cluster Munition Delivery Device/Mechanism' as a device/mechanism designed to deliver cluster munitions to a target.

3) 'Civilian in nature' as any city, population center, or other urban/suburban area that primarily possesses a civilian purpose without a large military or industrial purpose,

4) 'Military or Industrial in nature' as any military base, airfield/airport, factory, ecetera that possesses primarily a military purpose and can be attacked with minimal civilian casualties,

5) 'Air-borne mine laying' as, for the purpose of this resolution, any cluster munition delivery device that is not designed to deliver active explosives, but instead designed to lay mines.

HEREBY ENACTING,

1) Cluster Munitions shall be banned from use against targets that are civilian in nature,

2) Cluster Munitions shall be limited to attacks against active military targets OR prominent targets that are military or industrial in nature,

3) In the event of a strike against a stationary military or industrial target, all possible precautions are to be made to limit civilian casualties,

4) Cluster Munitions that are used in air borne mine laying capabilites are banned from use in conflict,

5) World Assembly Nations may not possess, use, stockpile, purchase, or sell cluster delivery mechanisms designed exclusively for air-borne mine laying,

I believe the main issue that will be raised is the ban on cluster dropped mines, when we just passed a resolution allowing landmines if they meet criteria, however, it is important to note this resolution does not ban mines in any way, it only bans the delivery mechanism for landmines which is via cluster munitions. Pretty sure I've covered my bases there but I'm open to discussion on it.

by **Araraukar** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:30 pm

Category/Strength?

Also, title is 16 marks too long. You're allowed 30 marks which includes spaces. Even if you shortened "World Assembly" to "WA", it'd be too long.

Additionally, check against the recently passed resolution that you're not duplicating/contradicting with it.

by **Hobbesistan** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:31 pm

Araraukar wrote:Category/Strength?

Also, title is 16 marks too long. You're allowed 30 marks which includes spaces. Even if you shortened "World Assembly" to "WA", it'd be too long.

Safe to assume it would be international security, not certain on the strength yet.

also, it's a working title, i'll come up with one that's within the character limit soon-ish.

by **Araraukar** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:34 pm

Hobbesistan wrote:Safe to assume it would be international security, not certain on the strength yet.

Nothing is safe to assume around here. With right kind of writing, GD and IS would borth work for what you want to do. Put at least the category up there where it's visible. Actually, considering you want to be restricting warfare, GD would be a safer bet at first glance.

by **Tinfect** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:37 pm

"The Imperium fails to see the necessity of this Legislation. At this time, we are opposed."

by **Hobbesistan** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:37 pm

Araraukar wrote:Nothing is safe to assume around here. .

because the GA is always so hostile to resolutions and people, which doesn't help anyone new trying to propose anything, infact it often drives them away, but I digress.

Araraukar wrote:Put at least the category up there where it's visible. Actually, considering you want to be restricting warfare, GD would be a safer bet at first glance.

I'm completely open to what people think is best.

by **Araraukar** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:48 pm

Hobbesistan wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Nothing is safe to assume around here. .

because the GA is always so hostile to resolutions and people, which doesn't help anyone new trying to propose anything, infact it often drives them away, but I digress.

OOC: And the universe is almost completely hostile to life as we know it, yet we're living proof that life is possible in the universe. Your point?

IC: Stating your intended category is basic manners. It'll help others to help you see the hits and misses of your proposal. Always write with category in mind and all that.

by **Hobbesistan** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:54 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Hobbesistan wrote:because the GA is always so hostile to resolutions and people, which doesn't help anyone new trying to propose anything, infact it often drives them away, but I digress.

OOC: And the universe is almost completely hostile to life as we know it, yet we're living proof that life is possible in the universe. Your point?

I expected the hostility when I prepared to post anything in GA so it's okay.

regardless, flagging it as global disarmament for now.

by **The Land of Beer** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:51 am

Opposed

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:03 am

"I don't see how Wartime Looting and Pillaging doesn't cover the protections for civilians adequately."

by **Hobbesistan** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:47 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I don't see how Wartime Looting and Pillaging doesn't cover the protections for civilians adequately."

Wartime Looting and PIllaging does nothing to protect civilians against indescriminate bombing, which this proposal would eliminate if in use of cluster munitions.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:05 am

Hobbesistan wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"I don't see how Wartime Looting and Pillaging doesn't cover the protections for civilians adequately."

Wartime Looting and PIllaging does nothing to protect civilians against indescriminate bombing, which this proposal would eliminate if in use of cluster munitions.

"I'll be happy to disabuse you of that notion."

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against civilians and their property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy.

"Deliberate use of munitions, cluster or otherwise, against civilian targets falls under this definition. The exception in that clause requires military necessity, which would require there be a strategic value to the act, such as:

3) 'Civilian in nature' as any city, population center, or other urban/suburban area that primarily possesses a civilian purpose without a large military or industrial purpose,

"Funny how WL&P already covers this exact contingency? If there is no military or industrial purpose, there is no military necessity for attacking the civilians in that area, and therefore, disallows the act. It further goes on to require nations prevent such damage.

"Because your draft's clause 1 and 3 attempts to cover situations already covered by Wartime Looting and Pillage, your draft is illegal due to Duplication.

"Additionally, the recently passed Landmine Safety Protocol defines mines as

Landmines, or mines for brevity, shall be defined as weapons adopted and issued by recognizable military services, designed to be deployed on or below the ground, detonate via some manner of proximity, and utilized as a means of ambush, area denial, or tactical boundary in conflict.

"Your proposal attempts to define cluster munitions as:

1) 'Cluster Munition' as any air, ground, or sea launched explosive device that splits into smaller submunitions,

"Your definition of cluster munitions is already contained within the definition of landmines in the LSP. (OOC: Heheh, Lumpy Space Princess)

"Furthermore, your proposal continues to ban airborne cluster munitions.

4) Cluster Munitions that are used in air borne mine laying capabilites are banned from use in conflict,

"This despite the fact that munitions that fit the description of mines, which includes cluster munitions, are considered safe, provided they meet the safety criteria in the LSP. Since such munitions are already capable of relatively easy clearance because of the required safety additions, there is no reason to ban such weaponry. The GA has already legalized the use of area denial weaponry in several facets, including chemical weapons and landmines, provided they can be used with a reasonable degree of safety. Since these munitions already require a particular degree of safety thanks to GAR#356, this effort is pointless.

by **Hobbesistan** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:12 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Hobbesistan wrote:Wartime Looting and PIllaging does nothing to protect civilians against indescriminate bombing, which this proposal would eliminate if in use of cluster munitions.

"I'll be happy to disabuse you of that notion."

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against civilians and their property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy.

"Deliberate use of munitions, cluster or otherwise, against civilian targets falls under this definition. The exception in that clause requires military necessity, which would require there be a strategic value to the act, such as:

3) 'Civilian in nature' as any city, population center, or other urban/suburban area that primarily possesses a civilian purpose without a large military or industrial purpose,

"Funny how WL&P already covers this exact contingency? If there is no military or industrial purpose, there is no military necessity for attacking the civilians in that area, and therefore, disallows the act. It further goes on to require nations prevent such damage.

"Because your draft's clause 1 and 3 attempts to cover situations already covered by Wartime Looting and Pillage, your draft is illegal due to Duplication.

The WL&P lists a exemption being 'military necessity', which is very broad language; One can argue flattening a city is of military necessity per the definition provided by the WL&P since it would make capturing said city easier per 'military necessity.' This resolution would both stand on its own should the WL&P be repealed and would be acting within the confines of it as passed.

"Additionally, the recently passed Landmine Safety Protocol defines mines as
Landmines, or mines for brevity, shall be defined as weapons adopted and issued by recognizable military services, designed to be deployed on or below the ground, detonate via some manner of proximity, and utilized as a means of ambush, area denial, or tactical boundary in conflict.

"Your proposal attempts to define cluster munitions as:
1) 'Cluster Munition' as any air, ground, or sea launched explosive device that splits into smaller submunitions,

"Your definition of cluster munitions is already contained within the definition of landmines in the LSP. (OOC: Heheh, Lumpy Space Princess)

"Furthermore, your proposal continues to ban airborne cluster munitions.
4) Cluster Munitions that are used in air borne mine laying capabilites are banned from use in conflict,

"This despite the fact that munitions that fit the description of mines, which includes cluster munitions, are considered safe, provided they meet the safety criteria in the LSP. Since such munitions are already capable of relatively easy clearance because of the required safety additions, there is no reason to ban such weaponry. The GA has already legalized the use of area denial weaponry in several facets, including chemical weapons and landmines, provided they can be used with a reasonable degree of safety. Since these munitions already require a particular degree of safety thanks to GAR#356, this effort is pointless.

Cluster munitions are nowhere defined as anything remotely akin to land mines unless they explicitly carry land mines as a payload. I would like to advise you read up on the material. Additionally, nowhere does this proposal ban any form of mines, it merely bans the delivery mechanism being used to deliver mines, which I fear is where you are confused; cluster munitions are more of a delivery mechanism for a explosive device rather than a explosive device in itself.

by **Grays Harbor** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:49 pm

Kills dozens you say? Wow. Hell, improperly placed parking spaces probably cause more fatalities.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:58 pm

Hobbesistan wrote:The WL&P lists a exemption being 'military necessity', which is very broad language; One can argue flattening a city is of military necessity per the definition provided by the WL&P since it would make capturing said city easier per 'military necessity.' This resolution would both stand on its own should the WL&P be repealed and would be acting within the confines of it as passed.

"If there is no military target, according to basic doctrine of military necessity, there is no valid reason to attack a target. Attacking a target that is neither military nor industrial is not necessary in a military campaign. The duplication exists, and the Confederate Dominion will be opposing and measure that violates our own resolutions with extreme prejudice and any means available."

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:12 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Hobbesistan wrote:The WL&P lists a exemption being 'military necessity', which is very broad language; One can argue flattening a city is of military necessity per the definition provided by the WL&P since it would make capturing said city easier per 'military necessity.' This resolution would both stand on its own should the WL&P be repealed and would be acting within the confines of it as passed.

"If there is no military target, according to basic doctrine of military necessity, there is no valid reason to attack a target. Attacking a target that is neither military nor industrial is not necessary in a military campaign. The duplication exists, and the Confederate Dominion will be opposing and measure that violates our own resolutions with extreme prejudice and any means available."

Tell the French about Verdun.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:23 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Tell the French about Verdun.

"What's a French? They sound like war criminals."

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:19 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Tell the French about Verdun.

"What's a French? They sound like war criminals."

I must say I am surprised about your not knowing of one of the more distinguished regions in our World Assembly!

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:26 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
"What's a French? They sound like war criminals."

I must say I am surprised about your not knowing of one of the more distinguished regions in our World Assembly!

"The Delegate asked me if a Verdun was a kind of car, ambassador. I think you set me up."

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:42 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I must say I am surprised about your not knowing of one of the more distinguished regions in our World Assembly!

"The Delegate asked me if a Verdun was a kind of car, ambassador. I think you set me up."

Parsons: I believe I spoke about telling the French about Verdun, my good Sir! Did you ask them what Verdun was or tell them what Verdun was?

by **Separatist Peoples** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:57 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: I believe I spoke about telling the French about Verdun, my good Sir! Did you ask them what Verdun was or tell them what Verdun was?

"Well, I can hardly tell them about the Verdun, I don't even know if it's a two-door or a four-door vehicle. I'll look like an idiot."

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 5:07 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: I believe I spoke about telling the French about Verdun, my good Sir! Did you ask them what Verdun was or tell them what Verdun was?

"Well, I can hardly tell them about the Verdun, I don't even know if it's a two-door or a four-door vehicle. I'll look like an idiot."

Parsons: My cousin, William Forrest DeWitt Henry Arthur Whitaker, showed you some photos of the place when you attended my banquet after the WSA victory. Did you not see them?

by **Kilimantonian** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:13 pm

Hobbesistan wrote:3) 'Civilian in nature' as any city, population center, or other urban/suburban area that primarily possesses a civilian purpose without a large military or industrial purpose,

Darnit! That means literally ALL of my nation's cities are targets because they all contain a minimum of 35 factories, and therefore have 'a large [...] industrial purpose'!

5) 'Air-borne mine laying' as, for the purpose of this resolution, any cluster munition delivery device that is not designed to deliver active explosives, but instead designed to lay mines.

Arguably covered by LSP, as we're discussing mines.

2) Cluster Munitions shall be limited to attacks against active military targets OR prominent targets that are military or industrial in nature,

Again, all my cities.

4) Cluster Munitions that are used in air borne mine laying capabilites are banned from use in conflict,

5) World Assembly Nations may not possess, use, stockpile, purchase, or sell cluster delivery mechanisms designed exclusively for air-borne mine laying,

LSP again.

Those are most of the problems i see - it seems to have considerable overlap with LSP and this draft. Also, this would ban our orbit-dropped DTEs (Delayed Trigger Ordnances) as they are arguably 'air-borne mine laying' devices.

by **Dooom35796821595** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:01 pm

And why can't we use a cluster munition to lay mines? Do we have to attach each one to its own delivery system (extreme waste of resources) or plant them by hand? (Resource intensive and dangerous)

Do we have to explain how out state of the art Hydra Mine Layer (HML) can deploy an entire minefield on its own, in a matter of minutes, completely safely.

Furthermore, wouldn't MIRVs fit this definition of a cluster munition?

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:52 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Furthermore, wouldn't MIRVs fit this definition of a cluster munition?

Yea... That's an issue.

[DEFEATED] Cluster Munitions Accord

[DEFEATED] Cluster Munitions Accord

Who is online