[DRAFT] Wartime Distress Protections

[Calladan]

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.

But - as I asked in a previous post - what if they have not signalled that they are in distress? What if all I can see is a plane on fire and a bunch of people jumping out of it in the uniform of enemy soldiers?

You said somewhere else that if they are in my territory, they are occupying it and therefore that is an act of war - I would argue my airspace is also my territory and, as such, if they are parachuting out of a plane, they are in it.

My original question - about six, seven posts back - was does the plane/boat/etc have to have declared itself in distress ("mayday! mayday!" etc) to qualify for protection under the proposal, or am I required to presume any vehicle that looks like it might be in trouble is in trouble, regardless of any calls for help or lack thereof?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: You might want to specify prisoners-of-war in Clause Four, Ambassador Parsons.

Fairburn: Actually, it's Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva...

Neville: I don't care. He is free to have a ridiculously long title. I am free to ignore such ridiculousness. I am not an ambassador, my job is not at stake.

Fairburn: Mind your comma splices, you primitive moron.

Neville: Fine, let me fix that. I am not an ambassador, I do not have a job at stake.

Fairburn: Now you're making it sound as if you don't have a job at all! A monkey has better grammar!

Neville: Shut up before I split your infinitive, you rotten pig skull.

Fairburn: ...Wow.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Neville: You might want to specify prisoners-of-war in Clause Four, Ambassador Parsons.

OOC: It's already been defined in previous legislation.

Fairburn: Actually, it's Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva...

Neville: I don't care. He is free to have a ridiculously long title. I am free to ignore such ridiculousness. I am not an ambassador, my job is not at stake.

OOC: It's like the Queen. She has a ridiculously long title. So did Victoria, George V, and George VI (and I keep forgetting the numbers behind the Edwards...). But every just called them Queen Victoria, King George, and Queen Elizabeth.

[Separatist Peoples]

"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).

OOC: to be fair, the Japanese violated the rules of war as a matter of course, so reciprocal treatment was justified, but that was an example in the extreme end of rarity.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: You might want to specify prisoners-of-war in Clause Four, Ambassador Parsons.

OOC: It's already been defined in previous legislation.

OOC: That's completely irrelevant when the proposal doesn't use the term...Wait, what the...?! OK, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in regards to your Democratic Budgeting Convention, but I know for a fact that prisoners of war weren't originally mentioned. Luckily, you forgot to destroy the evidence in your edits summary, so I'll be keeping that in case you try any funny business.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: It's already been defined in previous legislation.

OOC: That's completely irrelevant when the proposal doesn't use the term...Wait, what the...?! OK, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in regards to your Democratic Budgeting Convention, but I know for a fact that prisoners of war weren't originally mentioned. Luckily, you forgot to destroy the evidence in your edits summary, so I'll be keeping that in case you try any funny business.

OOC: Its fairly irrelevant, because those bailing out of disabled planes and ships are already generally considered hors de combat, and those found hors de combat are already not lawful targets. The only time they aren't is when their actions violate that protected status. Like shooting at an oncoming airplane.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: That's completely irrelevant when the proposal doesn't use the term...Wait, what the...?! OK, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in regards to your Democratic Budgeting Convention, but I know for a fact that prisoners of war weren't originally mentioned. Luckily, you forgot to destroy the evidence in your edits summary, so I'll be keeping that in case you try any funny business.

OOC: Its fairly irrelevant, because those bailing out of disabled planes and ships are already generally considered hors de combat, and those found hors de combat are already not lawful targets. The only time they aren't is when their actions violate that protected status. Like shooting at an oncoming airplane.

OOC: In the latter case, I'd be hoping for a clarification that the existing protections granted to POWs apply. Warfare is not my strong suit, so I unfortunately can't offer anything too sophisticated for these sorts of proposals.

[The Two Jerseys]

Our concern is that this proposal as worded would place the crews of disabled ground vehicles under protection should they evacuate the vehicle and attempt to withdraw to a safe position, despite the fact that once they exit the vehicle they effectively become infantry.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Our concern is that this proposal as worded would place the crews of disabled ground vehicles under protection should they evacuate the vehicle and attempt to withdraw to a safe position, despite the fact that once they exit the vehicle they effectively become infantry.

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)

Although planes and ships (and spacecraft) can be put under distress while out on patrol, ground vehicles are not often in that sort of situation. We agree with Two Jerseys that soldiers who have just exited a vehicle are basically infantry, but note the emboldened text in the proposal that may account for this in most cases, due to these soldiers most likely being in the process of conducting an invasion and still being combatants outside the vehicle. However, the specific wording used makes one wonder if the protections would have to be afforded to the same soldiers if their nation was the one being invaded.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Our concern is that this proposal as worded would place the crews of disabled ground vehicles under protection should they evacuate the vehicle and attempt to withdraw to a safe position, despite the fact that once they exit the vehicle they effectively become infantry.

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)

Although planes and ships (and spacecraft) can be put under distress while out on patrol, ground vehicles are not often in that sort of situation. We agree with Two Jerseys that soldiers who have just exited a vehicle are basically infantry, but note the emboldened text in the proposal that may account for this in most cases, due to these soldiers most likely being in the process of conducting an invasion and still being combatants outside the vehicle. However, the specific wording used makes one wonder if the protections would have to be afforded to the same soldiers if their nation was the one being invaded.

Fairburn: That clause is part of the preamble, so it does nothing. This is why you should think before you speak.

Neville: I've just noticed that Clause One uses 'etc.'. This is supposed to be international legislation, not a storybook.

Fairburn: Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of Geneva, 1st Earl Parsons of Eastminster, 8th Viscount Parsons of Eastminster, 1st Baron Markenshire of Concilium, Knight of the Garter, Grand Cross of St Michael and St George, Privy Councillor, Member of Parliament for Those-Across-the-Seas; Proconsul Decimus; Permanent Representative to the World Assembly, the lack of formatting makes my eyes bleed. Please fix this at once.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Neville: I've just noticed that Clause One uses 'etc.'. This is supposed to be international legislation, not a storybook.

OOC: ?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: I've just noticed that Clause One uses 'etc.'. This is supposed to be international legislation, not a storybook.

OOC: ?

OOC: I don't mean to be a pain in the you-know-what, but when is a vehicle considered to be in distress? Also, the storybook comparison was purely IC.

[The Interstellar Federation]

This is good, but what will happen to individuals or organisations that breach this resolution?

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is good, but what will happen to individuals or organisations that breach this resolution?

Parsons: That's outside the realm of the resolution. I know that a number of people want to repeal On Universal Jurisdiction, which blocks an international tribunal, and replace it with a new International Criminal Court, but that requires quite a lot of work.