[PASSED]Military Freedom Act

[Embolalia]

The previous drafting and debate thread can be found here.

FAQ:

Will this prevent my nation from having compulsory military service? No.

The resolution provides for nations to keep their compulsory military services. No nation, by accepting this resolution, is obliged by the resolution to allow any of their citizens to dodge the draft. The resolution simply provides an option for conscientious objectors to serve in non-combat roles. For the record, most militaries suffer from a severe shortage of medics. Place the conscientious objectors in medical roles. For those nations who are particularly military-minded, this not only does not harm the effectiveness of your armed forces, it increases their effectiveness.

Will my nation still be able to defend itself? Yes.

The resolution provides for nations to defend themselves from invasion. There are only three reasons that someone can apply for conscientious objector status; they can be opposed to all wars, they can be opposed to a war where the objector is within two degrees of consanguinity of any citizen of the opposing nation's military, or they can be opposed to wars of aggression, aggression on the part of your nation, not on the part of a nation invading yours. If your nation is being invaded, the only people who can conscientiously object are either total pacifists, in which case they will be of no use to you anyway, or they are related to the enemy, in which case they may be reluctant to fight against their kinsmen, they may refuse to fight altogether or they may actively sabotage you. For everyone who keeps citing World War II conscription; Italians and Germans were not allowed to serve in the US Army, with a few exceptions who used trickery and highly-placed fathers to strongarm the recruitment offices, because when you are in a war with a nation, it makes your military more effective if you don't have people from that nation serving with you. (It should be noted here that this would be more permissive than that. You could still conscript Italians and Germans, just as long as they didn't have family serving in the Italian or German military.) Once again, for those nations who are particularly military-minded, this not only does not harm the effectiveness of your armed forces, it increases their effectiveness.

Does this let anyone get out of combative service? No.

It allows three very specific types of people to avoid it - people who object to war in general, who would be useless to you anyway, people who have family on the other side, who are a security risk and a liability in battle, and people who object to wars of aggression, who, once again, would be next to useless to you anyway.

The resolution does not provide for the presentation of an arbitrary excuse which gets people off the hook. The resolution does, however, provide for you, the government of your nation and, by extension, your military, to investigate all applications for conscientious objector status. If your investigator can't tell if someone is lying, then, frankly, its the investigator who should be getting in trouble, not the conscientious objector because, by and large, people are terrible liars. The resolution does not provide for just anyone to avoid serving in combative military roles. It provides for people who would be awful as combatants to object to being combatants. A third time, for those nations who are particularly military-minded, this not only does not harm the effectiveness of your armed forces, it increases their effectiveness.

Does this infringe on my sovereignty? Well, duh...

This does infringe on your sovereignty, but that in itself is not an argument against it. But guess what? So does every World Assembly resolution ever. By joining the World Assembly, you have already given up some of your sovereignty. If you are a member of the World Assembly, then you are subject to its laws and, let me state this clearly, that was your choice. No one forced you to join the WA, you were not obliged to join the WA and you are not obliged to remain in it. Every resolution that the WA passes infringes on your sovereignty because it places an obligation on you, but you agreed to give the WA the power to place that obligation on you. If you really do not believe in having your sovereignty infringed upon, then leave the WA, because you have already lost some of your sovereignty. But the chances are that you don't actually care about having your sovereignty infringed upon, you just want all the benefits of WA membership but none of the cost. If you really cared about your sovereignty, then you would vote against every WA resolution and then you might as well not be in it.

If you cannot provide any argument other than the fact that it infringes on your sovereignty, then the truth is that you don't have a real argument against it, you just don't like control being taken away from you. And if you really have that much of an issue with having control taken away from, then leave the WA. But chances are that most of you who are just reciting the sovereignty argument want to influence other nations by pushing your ideals on them through resolutions but don't want the same thing to happen to you. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. The World Assembly is a forum for the ideals of all sovereign nations, not just yours. If your nation's ideals really do oppose conscientious objection, then, by all means, oppose the resolution. But if your only problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it too, then, if you're not going to vote for the resolution, at least abstain from the vote. You're supposed to represent the ideals of your nation, not the glorification of your ego.

Furthermore, the extent that this resolution does infringe on your sovereignty is negligible. It provides for a very specific demographic of your nation to choose not to serve a very specific role in your armed forces. The resolution prevents you from forcing people who would be more of a liability than an asset anyway to serve in the role in which they would be most harmful. The resolution prevents you from forcing people who would be awful combatants from being combatants. Again I say, for those nations who are particularly military-minded, this not only does not harm the effectiveness of your armed forces, it increases their effectiveness.

Why didn't you just ban conscription outright? I'm a diplomat, not an idiot

Even if I agreed with it, we could never get such a resolution passed through the World Assembly. As it is, the vote on this one is tight enough. This is even more free than we could have, should have expected. It is frankly amazing that we are doing as well as we are.

Idealism is admirable but it is not practical. Absolute morality, an undying refusal to compromise on your principles, an unwavering determination to better the world, all these traits are admirable but they are not practical. In an ideal world, those traits would get you everywhere and anywhere. In an ideal world, if you aimed for the stars, you'd reach the stars. But this is not an ideal world. This is the real world. In this world, if you aimed for the stars, you'd die in a resounding splat, a fiery crash or possibly by explosive decompression. There is a point where you have to realize that there are times when sticking absolutely to your morals is in itself totally immoral. Those of you who refuse to vote in favor of this resolution because it is not liberal enough, you are not helping the cause of individual freedoms. This is the most liberal resolution on conscientious objection we will ever get. And some protections for conscientious objectors is better than no protection at all. So anyone who has voted against this resolution because it is not liberal enough, I urge you to please, please, please change that vote to a vote in favor of it. To protect the principles for which you stand, in this case, a compromise must be made. It is sad that we must compromise on our morality but I put to you that putting your sense of personal honor above the individual freedoms of others is an even worse compromise. Please, support the proposition. Support this noble, noble cause.

FAQ adapted from a post by Ossitania.

Military Freedom Act
Furtherment of Democracy, Significant

Article I, Preamble:

The World Assembly recognizes the need for able persons to fight in the military of member nations. It further recognizes that many persons may have religious, conscientious, or moral reasons for objecting to combative military service. The World Assembly believes that these persons should not be compelled to serve against such beliefs. It hereby enacts this resolution to protect these persons.

Article II, Definitions:

1) A conscientious objector shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered a person who has genuine religious, conscientious, or moral objections to participation in war, wherein:
1a) Such objections are held against participation in war of any form, rather than participation in a specific war, except as noted in §1b.
1b) Objection to a specific war shall be considered valid if the war is one of aggression as defined below, or the objector is within two degrees of consanguinity of any citizen of the opposing nation's military.

2) A war of aggression shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered an armed conflict initiated by the conscientious objector's nation without prior provocation from the nation being attacked.
2a) Provocation shall be considered only violent and aggressive acts, terrorism, espionage, or credible threats thereof, against the objector's nation or its allies.
2b) Such shall only be considered provocation if it was funded, sponsored, or approved of by the government of the nation being attacked.
2c) Military occupation of another nation with the uncoerced consent of that nation's rightful government shall not be considered a war of aggression.

3) Combative military duties shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered any duty wherein a person is required to directly cause injury or death to any person.
3a) This shall include, but not be limited to, the use of any weaponry, the equipping of weaponry to machines or vehicles, and the control of any machine or vehicle equipped with weaponry.
3b) This shall not include administrative duties or the furnishing or preparation of medical and food services.

Article III, Requirements of Nations:

1) No nation shall compel a conscientious objector to serve in combative military duties.
2) No nation may punish or penalize a conscientious objector for that status.
2a) Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties.
3) Nations may make a good-faith effort to determine the veracity of a person's claim of conscientious objector status.
3a) This may include psychological evaluation of the person in question, as well as non-coercive, non-intimidating interviews with those familiar with the person in question.
3b) Nations must consider in these determinations the possibility that a person may develop objections during or following military service.
4) Nations may require those acquiring conscientious objector status while serving in a combative military duty to continue said duty for a pre-determined, finite period of time prior to reassignment to a non-combative duty.
4a) Such period shall exceed neither six months nor the term for which the duty was originally assigned.
5) This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service.

[Ossitania]

I'm thoroughly glad to see this proposal back on its feet. However, I remember there was an objection that was raised that, though false, may warrant definite clarification. I would suggest that you add the following clause as 3c;

"This shall not include duties where one may be required to cause injury or death to another person in self-defense."

[Cardoness]

Much better then the other one. I have not had a chance to pick this apart line by line yet, but do have an initial question.

Under this resolution, could a CO be required to load munitions onto a war machine?

[Quelesh]

We are also glad the Embolalian delegation is back to working on this. Assuming the proposal now in the queue fails, we'll support this effort.

I'm thoroughly glad to see this proposal back on its feet. However, I remember there was an objection that was raised that, though false, may warrant definite clarification. I would suggest that you add the following clause as 3c;

"This shall not include duties where one may be required to cause injury or death to another person in self-defense."

I would oppose this change, however. This would create a rather large loophole that would allow nations to force COs to engage in combat operations; after all, dump someone in the field of battle with a gun, and he'll be forced to shoot back in "self-defense."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Optimally I think the conscientious objector may be more satisfied if they are protected from being conscripted to any form of militia, state or non-state. It would not stop them from working in humanitarian aid or civilian business, nor prohibit them from being the Secretary of State for (civilian) Social Security, in our case.

[Embolalia]

I'm thoroughly glad to see this proposal back on its feet. However, I remember there was an objection that was raised that, though false, may warrant definite clarification. I would suggest that you add the following clause as 3c;

"This shall not include duties where one may be required to cause injury or death to another person in self-defense."

I would oppose this change, however. This would create a rather large loophole that would allow nations to force COs to engage in combat operations; after all, dump someone in the field of battle with a gun, and he'll be forced to shoot back in "self-defense."

I would tend to agree with this. I also tend to follow the belief that nations will take a resolution to be as lenient as possible within the confines of a word, and that the obvious solution would be to say that field medics (I assume that's what we're talking about) aren't required to defend themselves - it's not part of their job description - and/or that it is among the duties of the soldiers serving around them to protect them. Granted, it's a pretty cynical and pedantic loophole, but it's a loophole around an artificial contrivance that, by my own reading, isn't there in the first place.

Under this resolution, could a CO be required to load munitions onto a war machine?

Hmm.. That's a good question. I would be tempted to say no, since it could be considered placement of explosives. But I realize that's a somewhat weak claim, and it certainly wouldn't qualify under the obvious meaning of "combative military duties". So I think so, yes. I'm very tempted to fix that, as I see it as a flaw, but I'm unsure as to how that would go over with the militarists in the Assembly.

[Cerberion]

Article I, Preamble:
The World Assembly recognizes the need for able persons to fight in the military of member nations. It further recognizes that many persons may have religious, conscientious, or moral reasons for objecting to military service. The World Assembly believes that these persons should not be compelled to serve against such beliefs. It hereby enacts this resolution to protect these persons.

I recommend all references to "military service" be modified to "combatant military service".

While the intention is clear I would like this reference to be consistent. My people can't object to military service. They can object to killing people.

I don't think I can ever support this (or any other) similar acts, but this one is a great deal better than the one currently on the floor.

[Cardoness]

Under this resolution, could a CO be required to load munitions onto a war machine?

Hmm.. That's a good question. I would be tempted to say no, since it could be considered placement of explosives. But I realize that's a somewhat weak claim, and it certainly wouldn't qualify under the obvious meaning of "combative military duties". So I think so, yes. I'm very tempted to fix that, as I see it as a flaw, but I'm unsure as to how that would go over with the militarists in the Assembly.

As a former pilot in the Cardoness Royal Aerospace Force, I am not a conscientious objector; however it seems to me that one of the reasons someone becomes a CO is because they do not want to harm another living person. By loading munitions, not all of which is explosive, onto a war machine they are directly aiding in the death and destruction which that machine causes. Often this role requires a person to be posted rather close to the front lines with the rick of such outpost being attacked directly, in which case the person in question would be compelled to defend the position by means of force. For these reasons we feel that such duties should be included in the combat role definition.

[The Associated Peoples]

The only concern I have with this is for those individuals that enlist into military service of their own free will.I believe that once you sign the dotted line you have given up all rights to any form of CO status.You knew what the deal was and made a commitment and should be required to act in an acceptable manner in whatever field you are placed in.Other than that I have no other qualms.If something of this nature were to be added you would receive my support.

[Cardoness]

The only concern I have with this is for those individuals that enlist into military service of their own free will.I believe that once you sign the dotted line you have given up all rights to any form of CO status.You knew what the deal was and made a commitment and should be required to act in an acceptable manner in whatever field you are placed in.Other than that I have no other qualms.If something of this nature were to be added you would receive my support.

Generally I would agree with you, however I have seen people who joined of their own accord, talked a good game and went into battle with as ordered. But there is an event which happens when you watch the life drain from the eyes of a kid you just killed because he was wearing the wrong uniform and pointing his gun in the wrong direction. Such a solder did his job the that event struck him so deeply that he could never bring himself to pull the trigger again. Perhaps it can be classified as a mental problem, but the fact is that some do not realize they object to killing the enemy until they have killed.

[The Associated Peoples]

The only concern I have with this is for those individuals that enlist into military service of their own free will.I believe that once you sign the dotted line you have given up all rights to any form of CO status.You knew what the deal was and made a commitment and should be required to act in an acceptable manner in whatever field you are placed in.Other than that I have no other qualms.If something of this nature were to be added you would receive my support.

Generally I would agree with you, however I have seen people who joined of their own accord, talked a good game and went into battle with as ordered. But there is an event which happens when you watch the life drain from the eyes of a kid you just killed because he was wearing the wrong uniform and pointing his gun in the wrong direction. Such a solder did his job the that event struck him so deeply that he could never bring himself to pull the trigger again. Perhaps it can be classified as a mental problem, but the fact is that some do not realize they object to killing the enemy until they have killed.

You bring up a very good point here.I'll have to give this some thought. Thank you it is nice to be given a different point of view from time to time.Especially one that has the potential to change one's own philosophy.

[Ossitania]

I think the best way to resolve the debate about people developing conscientious objections during military service is to include a clause that says they can't apply for that status while on a tour of duty.

[The Associated Peoples]

I think the best way to resolve the debate about people developing conscientious objections during military service is to include a clause that says they can't apply for that status while on a tour of duty.

I could live with that.That would gain my support and quite possibly the support of the rest of my region.

[Cinistra]

The Collective is superior of the individual. The individual owes it existence to society and the State, and no reason for refusing to part take in the defence of the Nation is to be allowed. Ever. Against.

[Jedi Utopians]

Generally I would agree with you, however I have seen people who joined of their own accord, talked a good game and went into battle with as ordered. But there is an event which happens when you watch the life drain from the eyes of a kid you just killed because he was wearing the wrong uniform and pointing his gun in the wrong direction. Such a solder did his job the that event struck him so deeply that he could never bring himself to pull the trigger again. Perhaps it can be classified as a mental problem, but the fact is that some do not realize they object to killing the enemy until they have killed.

You bring up a very good point here.I'll have to give this some thought. Thank you it is nice to be given a different point of view from time to time.Especially one that has the potential to change one's own philosophy.

A CO is someone who, having joined, finds themselves unable to perform offensive actions. As I've stated elsewhere, we are a nation of compulsory military service; nevertheless, we do have those who, in the face of action, flinch, and they are a liability to the whole military force. Reassigning them or expatriating them seem to work well to meet their civil and political needs for us.

[Birrapex]

As WA Building Management has turned the heat back on, and I can now enter my office without the risk of losing fingers, I present the revised draft of my previous CO proposal. The old discussion thread, as well as the original draft (the failure of which hinged on just one delegate's vote), can be found here. Again, all constructive contributions are welcome.

Military Freedom Act
Furtherment of Democracy, Significant

Article I, Preamble:
The World Assembly recognizes the need for able persons to fight in the military of member nations. It further recognizes that many persons may have religious, conscientious, or moral reasons for objecting to military service. The World Assembly believes that these persons should not be compelled to serve against such beliefs. It hereby enacts this resolution to protect these persons.

Article II, Definitions:

1) A conscientious objector shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered a person who has genuine religious, conscientious, or moral objections to participation in war, wherein:
1a) Such objections are held against participation in war of any form, rather than participation in a specific war, except as noted in §1b.
1b) Objection to a specific war shall be considered valid if the war is against a religious or cultural group to which the objector demonstrably belongs, or if the war is one of aggression as defined below.

2) A war of aggression shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered an armed conflict initiated by the conscientious objector's nation without prior provocation from the nation being attacked.
2a) Provocation shall be considered only violent or aggressive acts, terrorism, espionage, or credible threats thereof, against the objector's nation or its allies.
2b) Such shall only be considered provocation if it was funded, sponsored, or approved of by the government of the nation being attacked.
2c) Military occupation of another nation with the consent of that nation's rightful government shall not be considered a war of aggression.

3) Combative military duties shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered any duty wherein a person is required to directly cause injury or death to any other person.
3a) This shall include, but not be limited to, placement or detonation of explosives, use of firearms, or control of unmanned aircraft, spacecraft, or watercraft.
3b) This shall not include administrative duties or the furnishing or preparation of medical and food services.

Article III, Requirements of Nations:

1) No nation shall compel a conscientious objector to serve in combative military duties.
2) No nation may punish or penalize a conscientious objector for that status.
2a) Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties.
3) Nations may make a good-faith effort to determine the veracity of a person's claim of conscientious objector status.
3a) This may include psychological evaluation of the person in question, as well as non-coercive, non-intimidating interviews with those familiar with the person in question.
3b) Nations must consider in these determinations the possibility that a person may develop objections during or following military service.
4) This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service.

Upon first reposting, the following changes were made:
Name changed to Military Freedom Act
II.2c, added entire clause. ("2c) Military occupation of another nation with the consent of that nation's rightful government shall not be considered a war of aggression.")
III.2a, removed "only during a time of war"
III.4, removed soapboxing. (", however nations shall be strongly urged to reduce, disestablish, or refrain from establishing, compulsory military service")

I'm also trying out a few different titles, since Conscientious Objection will just encourage lemmingism. "Military Freedom Act", "Fair Military Service", and "Military Remonstrance Act" are just a few...

I realize this is just a start, but the same issues exist with this that are causing fault with the current. Personally, I don't feel that rewording will make any difference, since no matter what phrasing you use you will always have as a part of the equation:

#1 Anyone can object for any reason
#2 Punishment for objecting can be given by assigning alternative duty

The act is doomed from the start by the facts of the matter.

[Embolalia]

Birrapex, if you're not going to read the proposal, I really can't help you. II.1-II.1b, III.2. Read 'em.

I think the best way to resolve the debate about people developing conscientious objections during military service is to include a clause that says they can't apply for that status while on a tour of duty.

This sounds like a good idea, but I'm unsure on how to prevent nations from assigning infinite tours to prevent COs. Call me an obnoxious RP purist, but I don't really want to bring specific time periods into this.

I recommend all references to "military service" be modified to "combatant military service".

I can see your point for the one use in the preamble, but the other two uses (III.3b and III.4) should stay the same. Someone could develop objections in non-combative military service, and the act certainly does not ban non-combative military service.

[Birrapex]

Birrapex, if you're not going to read the proposal, I really can't help you. II.1-II.1b, III.2. Read 'em.

I think the best way to resolve the debate about people developing conscientious objections during military service is to include a clause that says they can't apply for that status while on a tour of duty.

This sounds like a good idea, but I'm unsure on how to prevent nations from assigning infinite tours to prevent COs. Call me an obnoxious RP purist, but I don't really want to bring specific time periods into this.

I recommend all references to "military service" be modified to "combatant military service".

I can see your point for the one use in the preamble, but the other two uses (III.3b and III.4) should stay the same. Someone could develop objections in non-combative military service, and the act certainly does not ban non-combative military service.

I did read them. The draft as it stands still allows the same problems to exist. The objections are still allowed based upon personal beliefs, which is the root of the problem with objections. Allowing personal beliefs as a consideration allows ANYONE to participate whether they truly believe it or not. Hypothetically: A person claims to believe in Christianity. They go to church when they are supposed to and volunteer at a homeless shelter every Tuesday. They don't follow all of the 10 commandments, though. Does that person truly believe in Christianity?

It could be argued that since they do not follow the basic premise of the religion they do not. It could also be argued that the basic premises of the religion are simply a guideline and not rigid barrier. So, no one can really say what that person truly believes.

Punishment is still going to happen because the nation is going to assign alternative duty. If the nation wishes to bypass the objections by making the alternative more unsuitable than what the objection is to, then there is nothing you can do to prevent it. "Punishment" is a relative term, which is going to differ from person to person as well as nation to nation. Even if you defined in detail what constitutes "punishment" there will be ways around that simply by choosing an action that is not within the definition. The only way to ensure there would be no punishment would be to guarantee complete asylum for all objectors for eternity, which would just result in no military in the WA and a skyrocket in crime that would be unfathomable.

The idea, while a noble one, is flawed at its core.

[Embolalia]

EDIT: Upon realizing the nation above is the same with whom I have been having a similarly difficult time in a different thread, I have decided to remove the long response I wrote herein. I intend to ignore further posts from that nation, in order to avoid further escalation from either party.

In other news:
Changing second sentence in preamble to end "...objecting to combatant military service."
Considering alteration of II.3a to "This shall include, but not be limited to, the use of any weaponry, the equipping of weaponry to vehicles, and the control of any vehicle equipped with weaponry." I'm not sure about it yet though, because it seems somewhat less clear than the current one. (And, for a clarifying clause, it really ought to be clear.)
Considering adding between III.3 and III.4: "4) Nations may require those acquiring conscientious objector status while serving in a combative military duty to continue said duty for a pre-determined, finite period of time prior to reassignment to a non-combative duty.
4a) Such period shall exceed neither one year nor the term for which the duty was originally assigned."

[Birrapex]

Did you also read III.3-III.3a? How many people do you really think will be able to perfectly have expressed a consistent anti-war view without anything that could be construed as an indifference? In your example, wouldn't the investigators just ask them to say "Shibboleth", figuratively speaking?
It sounds to me like you disagree with the mere concept of CO, rather than anything specific to this proposal. If that's the case, just say so. Don't pretend like there's some other way of implementing a CO proposal that will fit your standards if there isn't. It's a waste of my time, and frankly it's a waste of yours.

I have read the entire draft. There are errors. I am pointing those errors out before you submit this thinking it is better than the previous attempt. I don't have a magical answer as to what to place in there, because the founding idea is based upon "personal belief". I would love to see you find a way to fix that, sincerely. The simple fact is, anyone can duplicate the facade of holding a belief. So, you are going to wind up with citizens that portrait whatever belief gets them out of duty and you will not be able prove otherwise.

I feel I have to respond to this, because it is so wildly illogical that the sheer joy I will get from ripping it to shreds, I expect, will be unparalleled. You say punishment is a relative term. This is true, in some way. But ultimately a punishment must be something levied against someone. That punishment can not, by its nature, be the simple normal duties that would otherwise be required. To put it another way: presumably a military, even one without CO, has non-combative duties. Personnel are currently assigned to these duties.

Sanitation was my example for the previous proposal, which is a health risk as well as distasteful, and well within those parameters.

If, upon implementing CO, COs are assigned to these duties in the same way as non-COs who happen to end up in them would be, that assignment could not be considered punishment. It would be, simply, "fair".

If the number of CO outnumber the non-CO, then the CO positions will never be filled by non-CO's. This will be the case unless the "personal belief" issue is resolved. So all CO positions, under that definition of punishment, become punishments because only CO officers are assigned to them. This means no CO positions may be assigned because it would be considered "unfair treatment".

WA resolutions make the presumption - must, under the rules, make the presumption - that they will be obeyed in good faith.

If good faith is already in place, this act is a waste of time, because the nations are already taking into account the personal beliefs and rights of the citizens when they induct them into service. So, the act needs to be written as a legal document would.

However, my favorite part of your misguided tirade was the part about skyrocketing crime rates. This just made me laugh. I'm going to assume, for the moment, that you aren't simply the embodiment of Poe's Law, and assume that you were actually serious. How on earth would not punishing COs for their CO status require complete asylum? There's nothing to say they couldn't be punished for actual crimes. If a CO committed robbery, there is not even a single letter in the actual draft that would in any way imply that that would not be punishable. So to say that this would somehow lead to massive crime rates is honestly among the most preposterously hilarious arguments I have ever heard in these hallowed halls. And that's really an accomplishment.

This shows me, to my dismay, that you are not looking far enough into the issue and would rather just gloss over any possible future problems the act might cause. I have already pointed out the problem with defining punishment and the fact that is an act for nations that are not complying with good faith on previous civil rights acts. The draft does take into account that it is already illegal to avoid military service in some nations. It does not take into account that those nations might inject new laws that will effect objectors. There is nothing stopping a nation from outlawing a belief and exacting punishment for breaking of said law. Again, I don't have answer to this problem other than complete asylum. Obviously, complete asylum is not the answer because of the effects I stated.

I see the problems and am willing to show them to you in hopes you can correct them. I do not know the answer for them at this time. I am trying to help, but I am getting the impression you aren't really interested in getting help. If you feel that the criticism is a waste of your time and doesn't help, why did you put this draft up for critique?

[Birrapex]

EDIT: Upon realizing the nation above is the same with whom I have been having a similarly difficult time in a different thread, I have decided to remove the long response I wrote herein. I intend to ignore further posts from that nation, in order to avoid further escalation from either party.

I guess you didn't really want the help after all.

[NewCalifornia-Republic]

I for one am fully in support off this act, if it has a clause in it, which would mean the CO can be used in defence of a nation against the aggressor

[Cardoness]

EDIT: Upon realizing the nation above is the same with whom I have been having a similarly difficult time in a different thread, I have decided to remove the long response I wrote herein. I intend to ignore further posts from that nation, in order to avoid further escalation from either party.

In other news:
Changing second sentence in preamble to end "...objecting to combatant military service."
Considering alteration of II.3a to "This shall include, but not be limited to, the use of any weaponry, the equipping of weaponry to vehicles, and the control of any vehicle equipped with weaponry." I'm not sure about it yet though, because it seems somewhat less clear than the current one. (And, for a clarifying clause, it really ought to be clear.)
Considering adding between III.3 and III.4: "4) Nations may require those acquiring conscientious objector status while serving in a combative military duty to continue said duty for a pre-determined, finite period of time prior to reassignment to a non-combative duty.
4a) Such period shall exceed neither one year nor the term for which the duty was originally assigned."

I agree with all of the above except for 4a. While I would not object to the "term for which the duty was originally assigned" part, I do think that a year is too long. I would say 6 months is about the longest you would want to go and even then I am uncomfortable.

[Embolalia]

I agree with all of the above except for 4a. While I would not object to the "term for which the duty was originally assigned" part, I do think that a year is too long. I would say 6 months is about the longest you would want to go and even then I am uncomfortable.

That's fine with me. What do you think about my proposed alterations to III.3a? Also, who here would support adding to the preamble RELIEVED that we're talking about something other than abortion for a change?

[Cardoness]

I agree with all of the above except for 4a. While I would not object to the "term for which the duty was originally assigned" part, I do think that a year is too long. I would say 6 months is about the longest you would want to go and even then I am uncomfortable.

That's fine with me. What do you think about my proposed alterations to III.3a? Also, who here would support adding to the preamble RELIEVED that we're talking about something other than abortion for a change?

YES! I am completely in favor of adding the RELIEVED line.

If you are talking about II.3a, I am good with that.