[DRAFT] Wartime Distress Protections

[Imperium Anglorum]

Wartime Distress Protections
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

---

Believing and establishing that member nations have an absolute right to defend themselves, but

Conceding that there is no defensible moral justification for the murder of persons evacuating a disabled vehicle, so long as those persons are not conducting an invasion and are no longer combatants (and therefore not infringing on the right of nations to defend themselves), and

Seeking to codify this in international law and provide extend protections to such persons,

This august World Assembly hereby,

1. Declares that persons, which are evacuating a vehicle in distress (such as an burning aeroplane, sinking vessel, etc.) and not engaged in a military operation, may not be targeted for attack;

2. Mandates that member nations treat the commission of such attacks as a war crime and treat such commissioners in accordance with the gravity of that crime;

3. Requires member nations to provide a opportunity to surrender for persons which have evacuated a vehicle in distress; and

4. Permits member nations to send military forces to apprehend such persons described in clause 1 as prisoners of war.

Edit 1: Changed "Requires member nations to provide a opportunity to surrender for military personnel which have evacuated a vehicle in distress" to "Requires member nations to provide a opportunity to surrender for persons which have evacuated a vehicle in distress".
Edit 2: Added clause 4 "Permits member nations to send military forces to take prisoners of such persons described in clause 1".
Differences in edit numbers and recorded edits is likely due to re-edits to add edit summaries.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reserved.

[Tinfect]

"Specifically provide for Military Forces to capture and detain personnel undergoing evacuation as prisoners of war, and the Imperium will provide support. Beyond this, we have little to say for the current state of the draft."

[Separatist Peoples]

"How would these individuals not be hors de combat under Rules of surrender? That was exactly why I included the term, after all, ambassador."

[Dooom35796821595]

So after sinking an enemy ship, their crew should just be allowed to run back to their home nation to operate another vessel against the nation they're attacking? Or are you suggesting even more situations for us having to care for pathetic POWs of nations who attack us?

[Calladan]

Would they have been required to have declared themselves in distress? Or are we required to accept any vehicle that is in what appears to be a state of distress as a state of distress? So if a ship is sinking, but there were no distress signals sent, no flares fired or the like, are we still required to treat it as a ship in distress or can we just treat it as a normal ship and shoot at it?

I am not asking because I want to kill more people - just to be clear as to when the law kicks in.

[Separatist Peoples]

So after sinking an enemy ship, their crew should just be allowed to run back to their home nation to operate another vessel against the nation they're attacking? Or are you suggesting even more situations for us having to care for pathetic POWs of nations who attack us?

"Rules of Surrender already requires you to make that choice."

[Dooom35796821595]

So after sinking an enemy ship, their crew should just be allowed to run back to their home nation to operate another vessel against the nation they're attacking? Or are you suggesting even more situations for us having to care for pathetic POWs of nations who attack us?

"Rules of Surrender already requires you to make that choice."

Then are you suggesting that this legislation is redundant?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Rules of Surrender already requires you to make that choice."

Then are you suggesting that this legislation is redundant?

"How would these individuals not be hors de combat under Rules of surrender? That was exactly why I included the term, after all, ambassador."

"Just suggesting that you didn't read the minutes, your Excellency."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"How would these individuals not be hors de combat under Rules of surrender? That was exactly why I included the term, after all, ambassador."

Because the definition provided in Rules of Surrender requires that they be combatants. We don't believe that it is possible to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in the case of a sinking ship or something like that. OOC: And more realistically, I didn't see that you included that.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Full support from the Greater Siriusian Domain."

So after sinking an enemy ship, their crew should just be allowed to run back to their home nation to operate another vessel against the nation they're attacking? Or are you suggesting even more situations for us having to care for pathetic POWs of nations who attack us?

"Pretty sure that a vessel that sunk an enemy vessel would be considered part of a military operation and therefore are exempt from clause 1, instead being subject to clause 3. Are you saying that you should be allowed to shoot at any vessel, civilian or military, that is in a state of distress during a time of war?"

[Europe and Oceania]

Opposed.

[Separatist Peoples]

"How would these individuals not be hors de combat under Rules of surrender? That was exactly why I included the term, after all, ambassador."

Because the definition provided in Rules of Surrender requires that they be combatants. We don't believe that it is possible to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in the case of a sinking ship or something like that. OOC: And more realistically, I didn't see that you included that.

"Well, that would be because people fleeing a sinking ship cannot be combatants. There is very little one can do elbow-deep in the drink that would count as combat if you've just abandoned ship. Its safe to conclude that any actions taken that would mark one as a combatant would be immediately recognizable."

OOC: No worries. I added it near the end.

[Umeria]

"Hypothetical scenario:

"During an air raid, an enemy plane is shot out of the air. A terrified figure jumps out, wearing a parachute, carrying a large bomb, and suffering from several burns. Given the circumstances, you have no idea whether this man intends to sacrifice himself by waiting until the bomb is at a lower altitude and then detonating it, possibly causing significant damage, or whether he is hoping that a lower-flying plane will rescue him and fly him to safety."

Carlyle takes a drink from a water bottle, mutters something about a purifier, then continues.

"So, do you consider the man to be a combatant and shoot him, letting the bomb detonate harmlessly at this height, or do you consider him to be an escapee and let him go on, possibly to live another day?"

[Tahkranul]

"Forgive me, darlings, I don't wish to be rude, but is this proposal truly necessary? Must we have myriad resolutions minutiae when it would be simpler -- or at least, cleaner legislatively -- to have a singular 'Conventions of Warfare' resolution with this and certain others each as a singular clauses?"

[Calladan]

"Hypothetical scenario:

"During an air raid, an enemy plane is shot out of the air. A terrified figure jumps out, wearing a parachute, carrying a large bomb, and suffering from several burns. Given the circumstances, you have no idea whether this man intends to sacrifice himself by waiting until the bomb is at a lower altitude and then detonating it, possibly causing significant damage, or whether he is hoping that a lower-flying plane will rescue him and fly him to safety."

Carlyle takes a drink from a water bottle, mutters something about a purifier, then continues.

"So, do you consider the man to be a combatant and shoot him, letting the bomb detonate harmlessly at this height, or do you consider him to be an escapee and let him go on, possibly to live another day?"

On a similar note :- there is a plane flying towards a city. Part of it is smoking as if on fire. The crew jump out with parachutes on. Are we to assume that they are abandoning the plane because it is on fire and in distress, and they are trying to save their lives? Or could it be possible that they set the fire and are using the plane as a missile with the intention of flying it into a city, or a skyscraper, or a nuclear power plant, with the intention of doing as much damage as possible to the city/skyscraper/power plant as is possible and killing as many people as is possible?

Because if they are in distress and the plane is about to crash land, then I would expect to treat them as prisoners of war and would do my best to try to help the plane land safely. However if they are using the plane as a missile then - quite frankly - I would shoot them as they parachuted down, or when they landed on the ground and I would blow the plane out of the sky no matter who was still on board. And I would challenge anyone who is watching a plane hurtle towards one of their buildings not to take the same actions.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Forgive me, darlings, I don't wish to be rude, but is this proposal truly necessary? Must we have myriad resolutions minutiae when it would be simpler -- or at least, cleaner legislatively -- to have a singular 'Conventions of Warfare' resolution with this and certain others each as a singular clauses?"

"I challenge you, ambassador, to cover all appropriate details of the Conventions of Warfare into 3,500 characters such that it adapts to the multiverse and doesn't end up built on culturally preconceived notions of fairness in combat not shared by other members. The ambassador from Elke and Elba attempted it once and it went poorly."

OOC: Even the Hague Convention didn't manage it, and they had no character limit when drafting that...

[Founder of Cyland]

"I'm having a hard time understanding the true need of this proposal. As far as we are concerned, enemies evacuating a destroyed or disabled vehicle are still enemies until they choose to surrender. I would not wish any armed forces to have to let them go or detain them until they submit themselves to the armed forces. This specification, while well meaning, seems useless in times of war when the nature of the conflict or battle may not allow for the time it may take for the enemy to depart their vehicle before the firing resumes. What this attempts to codify into law is a blanket issue of morality that is best handled by the commanders on the ground in a case by case issue."

- ambassador Zarike

[Bambooli]

Supported, however I agree that the term "non-combatant" in this case needs to have hard rules defining it. For instance, armed subjects might be exempt. Overall, though, I think that crewmen evacuating disabled vehicles should have protection.

[Imperium Anglorum]

However if they are using the plane as a missile then - quite frankly - I would shoot them as they parachuted down, or when they landed on the ground and I would blow the plane out of the sky no matter who was still on board.

Parsons: The proposal protects persons who are evacuating a vehicle in distress. The hypothetical missile-plane doesn't fall under such protections. The persons escaping are entitled, however, not to get shot until they have been given a chance to surrender.

---

Because the definition provided in Rules of Surrender requires that they be combatants. We don't believe that it is possible to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in the case of a sinking ship or something like that. OOC: And more realistically, I didn't see that you included that.

"Well, that would be because people fleeing a sinking ship cannot be combatants. There is very little one can do elbow-deep in the drink that would count as combat if you've just abandoned ship. Its safe to conclude that any actions taken that would mark one as a combatant would be immediately recognizable."

OOC: There was once an American fighter pilot in the Pacific theatre during the Second World War. He ejected from his plane, a Japanese pilot came to strafe him. He took his pistol out and downed the pilot (and therefore, the plane).

---

Supported, however I agree that the term "non-combatant" in this case needs to have hard rules defining it. For instance, armed subjects might be exempt. Overall, though, I think that crewmen evacuating disabled vehicles should have protection.

Parsons: The term non-combatant isn't used in the proposal.

As far as we are concerned, enemies evacuating a destroyed or disabled vehicle are still enemies until they choose to surrender.

Parsons: The absolute right of your nation to defend itself ceases at the point that enemies are no longer attacking it.

[Tinfect]

Parsons: The absolute right of your nation to defend itself ceases at the point that enemies are no longer attacking it.

"Of course, Ambassador. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot an enemy soldier while they are firing, but not when they are reloading. Of course.
If hostile soldiers are present in the Imperium, regardless of whether they are currently engaged in an assault on the Imperium, or are merely loitering in occupied territory, they remain hostile forces, and thus, viable targets, Ambassador."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: The absolute right of your nation to defend itself ceases at the point that enemies are no longer attacking it.

"Of course, Ambassador. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot an enemy soldier while they are firing, but not when they are reloading. Of course.
If hostile soldiers are present in the Imperium, regardless of whether they are currently engaged in an assault on the Imperium, or are merely loitering in occupied territory, they remain hostile forces, and thus, viable targets, Ambassador."

Parsons: If hostile soldiers are in your territory, they are occupying it, are they not? Occupation is an act of war and a military operation. I don't see the link. OOC: By the way, I hope people don't quote that entire bloody post when responding to it. That'd be massively obnoxious. I'm happy you didn't.

[Tinfect]

Parsons: If hostile soldiers are in your territory, they are occupying it, are they not? Occupation is an act of war. I don't see the link.

"Of course Ambassador, that is exactly my point. Simply that the enemy is not currently engaging in an assault, does not suddenly make them non-viable targets. The Cylandian Delegation raises a valid point; until such time as the enemy personnel involved have surrendered, there is absolutely no reason not to consider them enemy combatants, and thus, valid targets."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: If hostile soldiers are in your territory, they are occupying it, are they not? Occupation is an act of war. I don't see the link.

"Of course Ambassador, that is exactly my point. Simply that the enemy is not currently engaging in an assault, does not suddenly make them non-viable targets. The Cylandian Delegation raises a valid point; until such time as the enemy personnel involved have surrendered, there is absolutely no reason not to consider them enemy combatants, and thus, valid targets."

Parsons: I don't see the link then. We haven't claimed here or in the proposal that enemies not engaging in an assault are non-viable targets.

[Tinfect]

Parsons: I don't see the link then. We haven't claimed here or in the proposal that enemies not engaging in an assault are non-viable targets.

Parsons: The absolute right of your nation to defend itself ceases at the point that enemies are no longer attacking it.

1. Declares that persons, which are evacuating a vehicle in distress (such as an burning aeroplane, sinking vessel, etc.) and not engaged in a military operation, may not be targeted for attack;

Markhov produces a sheet of the transcript, and a portion of the Draft, and hands them to Parsons,
"Of course, Ambassador, not in so many words. However, the draft, quite specifically, prevents Member-States from engaging hostile forces, for the simple reason that they are engaged in evacuation. While the ability to properly arrest such individuals is helpful to the aversion of unfortunate circumstances arising from this, an enemy force that refuses to surrender, yet cannot be safely captured without military action, remains untouchable. Surely, you do not intend to force Member-States to allow such evacuations to return to allied territory so as to take part in later attacks, or to establish a position within the territory of Member-State, simply because they were doing so as part of an evacuation procedure rather than a Military action?"