[DEFEATED] Mercantile Prizes of War

[Dharmascus the Great]

This legislation would apply to privateers, but not pirates then. That makes sense.

It was brought up earlier that some nations may become elements of chaos by using a loophole in this clause:

Member states are allowed to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized.

The loophole being that, due to wording, the nation seizing the mercantile prize does not necessarily have to be fighting the belligerent, the belligerent simply has to exist. Perhaps changing "belligerents" to "enemy belligerents" would close this loophole.

Maybe 'hostile belligerent' would work better.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Maybe 'hostile belligerent' would work better.

All belligerents are hostile, as they are shooting guns at things.

[Excidium Planetis]

Applauding the World Assembly for its constant improvements on wartime legislation,

"What an egotistical preamble." Schultz says.

"Anyways, I find this resolution quite agreeable in every way, and would very much like to see it passed, however... Doesn't this contradict your own resolution, "Wartime Looting and Pillage", Ambassador Bell? After all, the seizure of nonessentials from civilians is banned, yet this proposal seems to allow the seizure of goods from civilian merchant ships as long as they belong to a nation you are at war with. I would like some clarification on this."

[Separatist Peoples]

Applauding the World Assembly for its constant improvements on wartime legislation,

"What an egotistical preamble." Schultz says.

"Anyways, I find this resolution quite agreeable in every way, and would very much like to see it passed, however... Doesn't this contradict your own resolution, "Wartime Looting and Pillage", Ambassador Bell? After all, the seizure of nonessentials from civilians is banned, yet this proposal seems to allow the seizure of goods from civilian merchant ships as long as they belong to a nation you are at war with. I would like some clarification on this."

"This doesn't deal with personal property, as WLP does. It deals with commercial property, an altogether grayer area. I'm just trying to pare down that grey area.

"And self-satisfying preambles are in vogue right now. Hadn't you heard? They're the new numbered clauses."

[Sciongrad]

"And self-satisfying preambles are in vogue right now. Hadn't you heard? They're the new numbered clauses."

"Ey rapaz, didn't your mother teach you manners. You say 'this new style, que legal,' you say 'numbered clauses are so old, they're out of vogue.' I ask you: why do you disrespect me like this? What did I do to deserve this treatment? When I was a menina, my grandmother, she would write international legislation by cutting the head off of a chicken. It would run around in the coop, hitting the walls, bumping into other chickens. When it finally died, she would inspect the ground, copy the marks the hen left in its frantic death dance on to paper, and submit it without any modifications. Now, I never said 'avó, your style is so outdated.' I never said 'avó, perhaps try writing this using coherent language.' The thought never crossed my mind because my mother taught me respect." Natalia removes her shoe and approaches ambassador Bell. "Now come here, you delinquent. I will teach you respect too."

[Excidium Planetis]

"What an egotistical preamble." Schultz says.

"Anyways, I find this resolution quite agreeable in every way, and would very much like to see it passed, however... Doesn't this contradict your own resolution, "Wartime Looting and Pillage", Ambassador Bell? After all, the seizure of nonessentials from civilians is banned, yet this proposal seems to allow the seizure of goods from civilian merchant ships as long as they belong to a nation you are at war with. I would like some clarification on this."

"This doesn't deal with personal property, as WLP does. It deals with commercial property, an altogether grayer area. I'm just trying to pare down that grey area.

"And self-satisfying preambles are in vogue right now. Hadn't you heard? They're the new numbered clauses."

"YOU MEAN WE COULD HAVE BEEN LOOTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THIS WHOLE TIME!?" Schultz says, frantically writing a message to her superiors. "We've just been moping about how we can only steal essential supplies from the primitive civilizations we attack!"

This may have a significant effect on the Excidian economy in a few months.

[Separatist Peoples]

"And self-satisfying preambles are in vogue right now. Hadn't you heard? They're the new numbered clauses."

"Ey rapaz, didn't your mother teach you manners. You say 'this new style, que legal,' you say 'numbered clauses are so old, they're out of vogue.' I ask you: why do you disrespect me like this? What did I do to deserve this treatment? When I was a menina, my grandmother, she would write international legislation by cutting the head off of a chicken. It would run around in the coop, hitting the walls, bumping into other chickens. When it finally died, she would inspect the ground, copy the marks the hen left in its frantic death dance on to paper, and submit it without any modifications. Now, I never said 'avó, your style is so outdated.' I never said 'avó, perhaps try writing this using coherent language.' The thought never crossed my mind because my mother taught me respect." Natalia removes her shoe and approaches ambassador Bell. "Now come here, you delinquent. I will teach you respect too."

Bell visibly shrinks in his seat, "Okay, okay, I take it back! I'll do the chicken thing, just put that shoe back on! Ricardio, help!!"

He throws his lunch money at the advancing diplomat to appease her.

"YOU MEAN WE COULD HAVE BEEN LOOTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THIS WHOLE TIME!?" Schultz says, frantically writing a message to her superiors. "We've just been moping about how we can only steal essential supplies from the primitive civilizations we attack!"

This may have a significant effect on the Excidian economy in a few months.

"Ahem, um...I don't know about that, but I believe there is sufficient grey area when it comes to goods not discretely owned by a specific individual, as is often the case in large businesses, that clarification in this case is not sufficient duplication as to be an issue. Especially considering the comparatively narrow parameters."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Updated the text.

[IPCD]

3. Member states must offer belligerent mercantile prizes that have lawfully enterd their territory prior to the outbreak of hostilities leave to return to friendly or neutral territory before capture. Upon entering friendly or neutral territory, or upon failing to comply, mercantile prizes are no longer afforded this protection.

The delegation of IPCD, itself being very concerned with maritime law, notes that a military vessel could simply follow a mercantile prize into neutral water and seize it the moment it crosses into said waters. We believe it should be amended to entering friendly territory as to avoid such circumventions of the spirit of the clause.

[Separatist Peoples]

3. Member states must offer belligerent mercantile prizes that have lawfully enterd their territory prior to the outbreak of hostilities leave to return to friendly or neutral territory before capture. Upon entering friendly or neutral territory, or upon failing to comply, mercantile prizes are no longer afforded this protection.

The delegation of IPCD, itself being very concerned with maritime law, notes that a military vessel could simply follow a mercantile prize into neutral water and seize it the moment it crosses into said waters. We believe it should be amended to entering friendly territory as to avoid such circumventions of the spirit of the clause.

"A very fair point, but military trespass into neutral territory is generally considered a hostile act in violation of Rights of Neutral States. For clarity, however, I will make sure this specifies territory of a neutral nation and not international waters."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Edited. Please note the last clause, which specifically allows interning or detention of ships without taking the vessel or cargo as a prize. This should solve the issue that IA and I were having at the start, where, I believe there was a misunderstanding on the distinction between seizing a craft as a prize and detaining it.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: bump. Silence is acceptance, people.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: bump. Silence is acceptance, people.

Two concerns. The first one is about parallel construction, namely, in the list form, there isn't any. The second one is about this clause:

5. Member states may not consider the crew of such a vessel to be themselves prizes of war. Such crews are entitled to the same rights and protections as Prisoners of War upon their capture or surrender, as defined by international law.

Really, the question is simply: why should civilian merchants be considered prisoners of war? And, more importantly, are the crew prisoners of war? This is unclear in the proposal.

[Excidium Planetis]

The second one is about this clause:

5. Member states may not consider the crew of such a vessel to be themselves prizes of war. Such crews are entitled to the same rights and protections as Prisoners of War upon their capture or surrender, as defined by international law.

Really, the question is simply: why should civilian merchants be considered prisoners of war? And, more importantly, are the crew prisoners of war? This is unclear in the proposal.

"I'm mainly concerned that, and I don't believe this is the first time you have done so, Ambassador Bell, you are creating a house of cards with these war resolutions. Not in the sense that they are illegal for requiring prior resolutions to function, but because they rely on your earlier resolutions for specific functions. Like here, where the crew of mercantile vessels are afforded the rights of POWs as defined by international law. But if the relevant resolution is repealed, that leaves the crew with no rights or protections."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: IA, I'll address your issue when I have a computer in front of me.

EP: the alternative is to rewrite the POW Accord every time. That's just not going to work. If POW Accord is ever repealed, a replacement will invariably use the term POW, and bases will be covered again.

[Araraukar]

OOC: EP: the alternative is to rewrite the POW Accord every time. That's just not going to work. If POW Accord is ever repealed, a replacement will invariably use the term POW, and bases will be covered again.

OOC: And even if there's no replacement, reasonable nations would have some sort of international agreement on POWs. It just might not be a WA-wide agreement.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: EP: the alternative is to rewrite the POW Accord every time. That's just not going to work. If POW Accord is ever repealed, a replacement will invariably use the term POW, and bases will be covered again.

OOC: And even if there's no replacement, reasonable nations would have some sort of international agreement on POWs. It just might not be a WA-wide agreement.

You'd be surprised by the lack of international law in the FT community.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: And even if there's no replacement, reasonable nations would have some sort of international agreement on POWs. It just might not be a WA-wide agreement.

You'd be surprised by the lack of international law in the FT community.

OOC: can't speak to that, but it's unlikely to be an issue in the GA, divorced as we are from II. I wish more roleplayers observed GA law. I would love to RP as a WA entity concurrent with an II or NS conflict.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

You'd be surprised by the lack of international law in the FT community.

OOC: can't speak to that, but it's unlikely to be an issue in the GA, divorced as we are from II. I wish more roleplayers observed GA law. I would love to RP as a WA entity concurrent with an II or NS conflict.

Off topic, but... I have some background stuff sitting around that's relevant to that MT humanitarian naval task force thing. Nothing major as measured by the scale I understand some of these things can get to, but more than one could safely sneeze at.

IC: "This looks good. The end of Paragraph 4 needs a tweak - say, '...may detain them for return to the nation of origin...' Also, Paragraph 6 needs a small change - perhaps try 'Member states shall consider actions or orders contrary to these provisions to be unlawful and a war crime...'"

"Oh, and Paragraph 1 doesn't need the word 'through.' And Paragraph 2 needs 'prior to the mercantile prize being seized.' And 7: 'it's' -> 'its.'"

"Other than that, we believe this is ready."

OOC: sorry for the shitty structure of that, I'm on my phone.

[Separatist Peoples]

5. Member states may not consider the crew of such a vessel to be themselves prizes of war. Such crews are entitled to the same rights and protections as Prisoners of War upon their capture or surrender, as defined by international law.

Really, the question is simply: why should civilian merchants be considered prisoners of war? And, more importantly, are the crew prisoners of war? This is unclear in the proposal.

"The POW Accord makes a determination between civilian internees, military internees, and prisoners of war. However, the rights and protections associated with them are functionally identical. The only difference is that Prisoners of War may be compelled to perform non-essential labor, while civilian internees cannot. However, as ambassador Schultz has pointed out, these resolutions necessarily build off of each other. My rejoinder was simply that, without repeating the relevant sections of the POW Accord at every step, such reliance was necessary. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages: It cuts down on character count, the POW Accord is not a very tempting target to repeal, and a replacement will almost certainly use the term Prisoner of War. Even if it is repealed, a follow-up will fill the gap appropriately.

"Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the term "civilian internee", which places me in the position of making a call: subject captured crew to legal compelled labor, or run the risk of having them excluded entirely as a result of an otherwise reasonable oversight. In the interest of preserving lives, I opted for the former.

"One could potentially argue that my wording of appending the rights and protections but not necessarily the duties would prevent this, and I admit, that was part of my intention with that particular wording, but I'll freely admit that its a tenuous argument to make. Its much more likely that nations that capture commercial ships, aircraft, spacecraft, or vehicles will choose not to consider that particular nuance. Though, I suppose if I tuck a note in there regarding the crews as not lawful belligerents (as opposed to unlawful belligerents), this would be less a concern. I would, of course, appreciate input on that."

Off topic, but... I have some background stuff sitting around that's relevant to that MT humanitarian naval task force thing. Nothing major as measured by the scale I understand some of these things can get to, but more than one could safely sneeze at.

OOC: That would have been fun, but then life precluded such an endeavor on my end.

IC: "This looks good. The end of Paragraph 4 needs a tweak - say, '...may detain them for return to the nation of origin...' Also, Paragraph 6 needs a small change - perhaps try 'Member states shall consider actions or orders contrary to these provisions to be unlawful and a war crime...'"

"Oh, and Paragraph 1 doesn't need the word 'through.' And Paragraph 2 needs 'prior to the mercantile prize being seized.' And 7: 'it's' -> 'its.'"

"Other than that, we believe this is ready."

OOC: sorry for the shitty structure of that, I'm on my phone.

"Thank you for the observations. I'll dig out my red pen and fix it. Nobody will mind some red scribbles on the final copy, will they? No? Good."

[Excidium Planetis]

You'd be surprised by the lack of international law in the FT community.

OOC: can't speak to that, but it's unlikely to be an issue in the GA, divorced as we are from II. I wish more roleplayers observed GA law.

I think that is directly related to the lack of international law. FT nations seem to be opposed to any kind of international law more than MT nations. Combine that with a common misconception that the WA is an Earth-centric thing, and very few FT nations I've seen roleplay with the GA.

I would love to RP as a WA entity concurrent with an II or NS conflict.

Because the WA is in Excidian canon, references to the GA have been fairly frequent in my roleplays. Mostly discussions with Tinfect, who also acknowledges the GA in RP.

[Tinfect]

I think that is directly related to the lack of international law. FT nations seem to be opposed to any kind of international law more than MT nations. Combine that with a common misconception that the WA is an Earth-centric thing, and very few FT nations I've seen roleplay with the GA.

OOC:
For the record, this is at least partially because FT, while theoretically better set-up for International contact between vastly disparate civilizations than MT's prevailing 'International Waters' idea, many FT Rpers have very different Canons, often relating to the origin of the FT Nations in question.

For example, Excidium Planetis has in their history, that they abandoned Earth due to a horrible cataclysm, or somesuch. Due to this, any RPs that involve Earth, or other Humans, are generally a bit difficult to work with. This assumes not using fractal earth theory, but frankly, I've always found that one a bit silly. The Imperium of Tinfect gets around this by simply not being on Earth, and not having any contact with Earth-Based Civs. In this sense, Tinfect could actually fit into Excidium Planetis' canon.

Which brings up another point, closed-canons. While this may not seem necessary, seeing as how space is actually quite large, certain conditions can necessitate this, notably, if you happen to know/be one of those supermassive galactic empire types, where it is more or less impossible to work with FT Prime. It can also come up, if you aren't the sort that wants RPs to be crashed by people that deploy hundreds of 200 kilometer superdreadnoughts to every single engagement, or if you want exactly that to happen, as that is a thing, for some reason.

Basically, due to the scale on which they operate, FT-Canon is a clusterfuck of epic proportions, and most people resort to Multiverse theory to keep the nonsense away. Of course, this created the -verse wankers, but lets move past them lest they discover us. Anyway, due to this, the fairly low numbers of FT Roleplayers, the even lower numbers of decent FT Rpers, nations that really should be on the absolute ass-end of what is even slightly acceptable, like the Imperium, with all its Subspace Handwavium, Powered Armour Spam, and full planet-cracking, end up with nations like Excdium Planetis, with their somewhat unique premise, tech that is practically PMT if you squint at it, and reasonable ship design, for the most part.

All of that, means that no-one could agree on what International Laws should constitute, or they don't see why/how anyone would follow/enforce them, or they don't see why/how they would follow/enforce them, or why anyone should even bother in the first place. The most you get is organizations like the GESO (Galactic Economic and Security Organization), which, for the most part, are all quite similar, and are usually treated as RP groups more than anything else.

[Excidium Planetis]

For example, Excidium Planetis has in their history, that they abandoned Earth due to a horrible cataclysm, or somesuch. Due to this, any RPs that involve Earth, or other Humans, are generally a bit difficult to work with.

Actually, (and I'm sure I've explained this before but I can't expect you to keep track of my canon, now, right?), the ancestors of Excidium fled a totally non-Earth collection of planets in an unspecified corner of the Milky Way. There is an Earth in Excidian canon, but all records of it after the year 2016 basically don't exist.

I could, theoretically, accept an Earth-based nation's canon into mine. The problem is I could only do that one time, and after that problems would arise with conflicting canons. Which is why I avoid Earth at all costs.

[Imperium Anglorum]

5. Member states may not consider the crew of such a vessel to be themselves prizes of war. Such crews are entitled to the same rights and protections as Prisoners of War upon their capture or surrender, as defined by international law.

Really, the question is simply: why should civilian merchants be considered prisoners of war? And, more importantly, are the crew prisoners of war? This is unclear in the proposal.

"The POW Accord makes a determination between civilian internees, military internees, and prisoners of war. However, the rights and protections associated with them are functionally identical. The only difference is that Prisoners of War may be compelled to perform non-essential labor, while civilian internees cannot. However, as ambassador Schultz has pointed out, these resolutions necessarily build off of each other. My rejoinder was simply that, without repeating the relevant sections of the POW Accord at every step, such reliance was necessary. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages: It cuts down on character count, the POW Accord is not a very tempting target to repeal, and a replacement will almost certainly use the term Prisoner of War. Even if it is repealed, a follow-up will fill the gap appropriately.

"Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the term "civilian internee", which places me in the position of making a call: subject captured crew to legal compelled labor, or run the risk of having them excluded entirely as a result of an otherwise reasonable oversight. In the interest of preserving lives, I opted for the former.

"One could potentially argue that my wording of appending the rights and protections but not necessarily the duties would prevent this, and I admit, that was part of my intention with that particular wording, but I'll freely admit that its a tenuous argument to make. Its much more likely that nations that capture commercial ships, aircraft, spacecraft, or vehicles will choose not to consider that particular nuance. Though, I suppose if I tuck a note in there regarding the crews as not lawful belligerents (as opposed to unlawful belligerents), this would be less a concern. I would, of course, appreciate input on that."

OOC: I will admit that I don't entirely follow this response. However, what I got from it was basically that you said PoW because it is already defined and probably won't get repealed. I'm still unsure whether civilian merchants are considered prisoners of war. And while I see why using PoW is a helpful definition, I don't see why that is a reason for affirmative action.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I will admit that I don't entirely follow this response. However, what I got from it was basically that you said PoW because it is already defined and probably won't get repealed. I'm still unsure whether civilian merchants are considered prisoners of war. And while I see why using PoW is a helpful definition, I don't see why that is a reason for affirmative action.

OOC: What didn't you follow? It was all very straightforward strategic planning. Civilian merchants are granted the same rights and protections as prisoners of war, which makes them de facto prisoners of war. This is helpful because, if POW Accord was repealed, a replacement will likely use POW instead of "civilian internee", as the current POW Accord does. As such, considering them POWs as opposed to civilian internees makes more sense strategically from an authorship perspective.

I don't see how that isn't worth affirmative action. It prevents gaps in future legislation. This is a good thing. The rest of this was me predicting counterarguments and settling them.