[PASSED]Convention on Wartime Deceased

[Serrland]

OOC: Title will be changed when I think of something shorter and more apt. As always, criticisms and statements of support are welcome. This is a rough, tentative first draft, so I expect it might change a bit over the course of the debate.

CONVENTION ON WARTIME DECEASED

strength: Mild
Category: Moral Decency

DEFINING wartime as a period of conflict between two armed entities,

DEFINING desecration as the act of defiling, profaning, or otherwise mutilating and causing undue trauma,

DEFINING the field of battle as the location at which an armed conflict resulting in casualties has occurred or is occurring,

NOTING that in wartime situations there are casualties and deaths,

FURTHER NOTING that emotions may run high in wartime situations, resulting in unbecoming behavior,

CONCERNED that the bodies of deceased combatants and civilians may be desecrated in acts of rage, violence, or malice,

AWARE that the bodies of the deceased should be treated with respect,

COGNIZANT of the impact that the desecration of a body can have on the family, friends, and relations of the deceased,

The World Assembly hereby

DEMANDS that states take appropriate measures to prevent the desecration of deceased civilians, military personnel, and any others who may fall on the field of battle,

CONDEMNS those who partake in such acts, as well as those governments that support said activity,

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations make provisions for the proper burial or other post-death rituals, depending on the culture of the nation or of the deceased in question, whenever possible,

RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible,

PROHIBITS the needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle

Second Draft:


CONVENTION ON RESPECTING THE DECEASED IN WARTIME

strength: Mild (perhaps Significant)
Category: Moral Decency

DEFINING wartime as a period of conflict between two armed entities,

DEFINING desecration as the act of defiling, profaning, or otherwise mutilating and causing undue trauma,

DEFINING the field of battle as the location at which an armed conflict resulting in casualties has occurred or is occurring,

NOTING that in wartime situations there are casualties and deaths,

FURTHER NOTING that emotions may run high in wartime situations, resulting in unbecoming behavior,

CONCERNED that the bodies of deceased combatants and civilians may be desecrated in acts of rage, violence, or malice,

AWARE that the bodies of the deceased should be treated with respect,

COGNIZANT of the impact that the desecration of a body can have on the family, friends, and relations of the deceased,

The World Assembly hereby

DEMANDS that states take appropriate measures to prevent the desecration of deceased civilians, military personnel, and any others who may fall on the field of battle,

CONDEMNS those who partake in such acts, as well as those governments that support said activity,

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations make provisions for the proper burial or other post-death rituals, depending on the culture of the nation or of the deceased in question, whenever possible,

RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible,

PROHIBITS the needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle

strength: Mild (perhaps Significant)
Category: Moral Decency

DEFINING wartime as a period of conflict between two armed entities,

DEFINING desecration as the act of defiling, profaning, or otherwise mutilating and causing undue trauma,

DEFINING the field of battle as the location at which an armed conflict resulting in casualties has occurred or is occurring,


NOTING that in wartime situations there are often casualties and deaths,

FURTHER NOTING that emotions may run high in wartime situations, resulting in unbecoming behavior,

CONCERNED that the bodies of deceased combatants and civilians may be desecrated in acts of rage, violence, or other such expressions of ill willmalice,

AWARE that the bodies of the wartime deceased should be treated with respect,

COGNIZANT of the impact that the desecration of a body can have on the family, friends, and relations ofsaid deceased individual the deceased,

DEFINING wartime as a period of conflict between two armed entities,

DEFINING desecration as the act of defiling, profaning, or otherwise mutilating and causing undue trauma,

DEFINING the field of battle as the location at which an armed conflict resulting in casualties has occurred or is occurring,

The World Assembly hereby

DEMANDS that states take appropriate measures to prevent the desecration of deceased civilians, military personnel, and any others who may fall on the field of battle,

CONDEMNS those who partake in such acts of barbarism, as well as those governments that support said activity,

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations make provisions for the proper burial or other post-death rituals, depending on the culture of the nation or of the deceased in question, whenever possible,

PROHIBITS the intentional needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle

[Cinistra]

Good proposal. Here are some suggestions for improving it. Text in blue colour is my additions.

OOC: Title will be changed when I think of something shorter and more apt. As always, criticisms and statements of support are welcome. This is a rough, tentative first draft, so I expect it might change a bit over the course of the debate.


CONVENTION ON RESPECTING THE DECEASED IN WARTIME

Strength: Mild no(perhaps Significant)yes
Category: Moral Decency

NOTING that in wartime situations there are often casualties and deaths,

FURTHER NOTING that emotions may run high in wartime situations, resulting in unbecoming behavior,

CONCERNED that the bodies of the deceased combatants and civilians may be desecrated in acts of rage, violence,or other such expressions of ill will,
AWARE that the bodies of the wartime deceased should be treated with respect,

COGNIZANT of the impact that the desecration of a body can have on the family, friends, and relations of said the deceased individual,

DEFINING wartime as a period of conflict between two armed entities,

DEFINING desecration as the act of defiling, profaning, or otherwise mutilating and causing undue trauma,

DEFINING the field of battle as the location at which an armed conflict resulting in casualties has occurred or is occurring,
Put the definitions directly after Category
The World Assembly hereby

DEMANDS too strong: use REQUIRESthat states take appropriate measures to prevent the desecration of deceased civilians, military personnel, and any others who may fall on the field of battle,

CONDEMNS those who partake in such acts of barbarism, as well as those governments that support said activity,

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations make provisions for the proper burial or other post-death rituals, depending on the culture of the nation or of the deceased in question, whenever possible,

PROHIBITS the intentional dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle

[Scolville Units]

Notice of Intent to Vote:

From: The Desk of The Exalted Pep,

The Heat Indexed Theocracy of Scolville Units will lend support to this proposal and vote affirmative in the event that it reaches the voting floor.

OOC: however, this proposal would take oll the fun out of a game of Halo.

With Anticipation,

Jean Claude VI

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Member states may raise the question of whether this draft should apply to their enemies. Ms. Harper observes that some member states may wish to have this draft exclude the enemies but we feel that if they do not want to bury their enemies in their territory, they should at least repatriate them back to their homeland.

For strength, we feel it should be mild, to take into account of peaceful states who have rarely or never gone to war.

[Ossitania]

Hmmm, there have been times where soldiers, especially those fighting in harsh conditions (OOC: The Pacific Theatre of WWII), as well as civilians, including those subjected to long, drawn-out sieges (OOC: The Siege of Leningrad), have had to resort to cannibalism or other uses of deceased bodies in order to survive.

I don't think such people should be condemned, especially given the levels of trauma some of them would go through being forced into a position where they have to eat other people or use their skin for clothing or shelter just to survive. My suggest change to wording is below;

CONVENTION ON RESPECTING THE DECEASED IN WARTIME

Strength: Mild (perhaps Significant)¹
Category: Moral Decency

NOTING that in wartime situations there are often casualties and deaths,

FURTHER NOTING that emotions may run high in wartime situations, resulting in unbecoming behavior,

CONCERNED that the bodies of deceased combatants and civilians may be desecrated in acts of rage, violence, or other such expressions of ill will,

AWARE that the bodies of the wartime deceased should be treated with respect,

COGNIZANT of the impact that the desecration of a body can have on the family, friends, and relations of said deceased individual,

RECOGNISING, however, that survival in harsh conditions may require the utilisation of the bodily resources of the dead,

DEFINING wartime as a period of conflict between two armed entities,

DEFINING desecration as the act of defiling, profaning, or otherwise mutilating and causing undue trauma,

DEFINING the field of battle as the location at which an armed conflict resulting in casualties has occurred or is occurring,

The World Assembly hereby

DEMANDS that states take appropriate measures to prevent the desecration of deceased civilians, military personnel, and any others who may fall on the field of battle,

CONDEMNS those who partake in such acts of barbarism², except for when such acts are necessary for their own survival, as well as those governments that support said activities,

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations make provisions for the proper burial or other post-death rituals of those who die in the field of battle, depending on the culture of the nation or of the deceased in question, whenever possible,

PROHIBITS the intentional dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle³

¹I don't think the area of effect is wide enough or the provisions demanding enough to warrant a "Significant" category.
²I think opinion should be kept in the preamble.
³Somewhat unnecessary and it conflicts with my suggest provision for uses of body resources for survival.

[Serrland]

Good proposal. Here are some suggestions for improving it.

Thank you for your suggestions, I hope the edit, which is now posted in the OP, will be more to your liking.

Notice of Intent to Vote:

From: The Desk of The Exalted Pep,

The Heat Indexed Theocracy of Scolville Units will lend support to this proposal and vote affirmative in the event that it reaches the voting floor.

OOC: however, this proposal would take oll the fun out of a game of Halo.

With Anticipation,

Jean Claude VI

The Serri delegation thanks you for your support (and agreed OOCly, except with Counterstrike, not Halo)

Member states may raise the question of whether this draft should apply to their enemies. Ms. Harper observes that some member states may wish to have this draft exclude the enemies but we feel that if they do not want to bury their enemies in their territory, they should at least repatriate them back to their homeland.

For strength, we feel it should be mild, to take into account of peaceful states who have rarely or never gone to war.

We agree that some members states would indeed wish to exclude enemies, and also agree with Ms Harper's observations. We have left the language intentionally somewhat ambiguous to that end. Repatriation vs mass graves, etc, is a debate that has been raging for a long long while, and we understand that not all nations have the capability to repatriate the bodies of fallen enemies, and as such feel it would be impossible to mandate such behavior, despite our moral support for repatriation of the deceased.

Hmmm, there have been times where soldiers, especially those fighting in harsh conditions (OOC: The Pacific Theatre of WWII), as well as civilians, including those subjected to long, drawn-out sieges (OOC: The Siege of Leningrad), have had to resort to cannibalism or other uses of deceased bodies in order to survive.

I don't think such people should be condemned, especially given the levels of trauma some of them would go through being forced into a position where they have to eat other people or use their skin for clothing or shelter just to survive. My suggest change to wording is below;

I am somewhat reluctant to give too much emphasis on excusing cannibalism, simply due to the wide cultural array of WA nations - some may, like the Russians at Leningrad in your OOC example, think it repugnant to eat the deceased but are forced into it, others may find it wholly unacceptable in any situation. I have, however, noted your point, and changed the last clause to read:

"PROHIBITS the needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle"

The change from "PROHIBITS the intentional dismembering..." to "PROHIBITS the needless dismembering..." gives some wiggle room for nations that have such concerns as you have voiced here.

[Ossitania]

I am somewhat reluctant to give too much emphasis on excusing cannibalism, simply due to the wide cultural array of WA nations - some may, like the Russians at Leningrad in your OOC example, think it repugnant to eat the deceased but are forced into it, others may find it wholly unacceptable in any situation. I have, however, noted your point, and changed the last clause to read:

"PROHIBITS the needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle"

The change from "PROHIBITS the intentional dismembering..." to "PROHIBITS the needless dismembering..." gives some wiggle room for nations that have such concerns as you have voiced here.

I understand your reluctance, however, my concerns were not leveled specifically at cannibalism, there are other uses for dead bodies.

Nonetheless, I accept your reluctance and agree that the change to wording gives sufficient wiggle room, especially with the usage of the word "needless".

[Bears Armed]

I am somewhat reluctant to give too much emphasis on excusing cannibalism, simply due to the wide cultural array of WA nations - some may, like the Russians at Leningrad in your OOC example, think it repugnant to eat the deceased but are forced into it, others may find it wholly unacceptable in any situation.

And others may regard it as traditional, and perfectly acceptable...

(OOC: Not the Bears, actually, but I've seen posts to that effect elsewhere in these forums...)

[Darenjo]

Oh. My. God. A good proposal.

With the change that Ossi suggested in place, we support.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I'm starting to question whether this draft is worthy of international consideration. I appreciate the idea about not desecrating war memorials but our ambassador thinks that is a national issue for memorials of soldiers who are dedicated in the said country, and come from the said country. I think what would be worthy of looking is the prevention of the desecration of international memorials or graves.

This draft may run into a lot of problems about funeral rites, like RL. Some cultures deem cremation as acceptable. In the universe of NS some rituals can vary greatly from burial/cremation.

Just some thoughts here.

[Serrland]

I'm starting to question whether this draft is worthy of international consideration. I appreciate the idea about not desecrating war memorials but our ambassador thinks that is a national issue for memorials of soldiers who are dedicated in the said country, and come from the said country. I think what would be worthy of looking is the prevention of the desecration of international memorials or graves.

This draft may run into a lot of problems about funeral rites, like RL. Some cultures deem cremation as acceptable. In the universe of NS some rituals can vary greatly from burial/cremation.

Just some thoughts here.

Your concerns are noted and appreciated. I would tend to think that protection of international war memorials is a different issue, though.

We disagree about your assessment of the international scope of this proposal - in a war (which perhaps should be redefined as a war involving two or more nations, to reinforce the international scope, that was my mistake in not clarifying that within the proposal) the treatment of the deceased who, as citizens (or rather, people who were citizens) and members of an armed force of another country, is a matter of sufficient international scale to warrant discussion in this assembly.

If a citizen of Serrland dies on a field of battle in your fine nation (with all due respect, this is just an example) we would expect your military to act with appropriately and respectfully towards the bodies of those who had fallen, to the best of their ability. I would think that you would expect the same of the Serri military if the example was reversed. This, although we note that we will decide firmly that the strength will be set as mild, is the codification of widely held customs, and due to the international nature of war, feel that it is an issue worthy of WA consideration.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We agree that some members states would indeed wish to exclude enemies, and also agree with Ms Harper's observations. We have left the language intentionally somewhat ambiguous to that end. Repatriation vs mass graves, etc, is a debate that has been raging for a long long while, and we understand that not all nations have the capability to repatriate the bodies of fallen enemies, and as such feel it would be impossible to mandate such behavior, despite our moral support for repatriation of the deceased.

I think it could still be mentioned as a recommendation, where possible.

[Serrland]

We agree that some members states would indeed wish to exclude enemies, and also agree with Ms Harper's observations. We have left the language intentionally somewhat ambiguous to that end. Repatriation vs mass graves, etc, is a debate that has been raging for a long long while, and we understand that not all nations have the capability to repatriate the bodies of fallen enemies, and as such feel it would be impossible to mandate such behavior, despite our moral support for repatriation of the deceased.

I think it could still be mentioned as a recommendation, where possible.

A clause has been added encouraging repatriation of the deceased.

[Hindopia]

I'll support. It's simple and concise just like a good proposal should be. Good work, Ambassador.

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

FURTHER NOTING that emotions may run high in wartime situations, resulting in unbecoming behavior,

A little observation on this, emotions can also run high in victory against the enemy. It seems very tempting to desecrate bodies of defeated enemies in some countries.

[Genoca (Ancient)]

FURTHER NOTING that emotions may run high in wartime situations, resulting in unbecoming behavior,

A little observation on this, emotions can also run high in victory against the enemy. It seems very tempting to desecrate bodies of defeated enemies in some countries.

Could victory be considered a part of wartime situations, as without war you cannot have victory?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

A little observation on this, emotions can also run high in victory against the enemy. It seems very tempting to desecrate bodies of defeated enemies in some countries.

Could victory be considered a part of wartime situations, as without war you cannot have victory?

Sometimes it could have a long lasting effect on attitudes towards the enemy, honoured ambassador, long after the guns fell silent. Once again, Ms. Harper feels that if victors don't want to hold their enemies in their territory, they should at least repatriate them back to their homeland, but what if the enemy collapsed into the hands of the victor is another question.

[Serrland]

Could victory be considered a part of wartime situations, as without war you cannot have victory?

Sometimes it could have a long lasting effect on attitudes towards the enemy, honoured ambassador, long after the guns fell silent. Once again, Ms. Harper feels that if victors don't want to hold their enemies in their territory, they should at least repatriate them back to their homeland, but what if the enemy collapsed into the hands of the victor is another question.

I'm not entirely certain it is a different question - in the end, it is still a body on a battlefield or some other contested territory. The body of a victor oughn't be treated with more respect than the body of a loser. For the purpose of this proposal, I am entirely reluctant to make any reference at all to winners or losers of a given conflict, as I feel it is, as far as the context of this resolution goes, more or less irrelevent.

[Eireann Fae]

"They're just bodies. We have no particular desire to desecrate the corpses of our enemies (if we have any...), but do not feel that this is a matter for the WA. Most of the taboos regarding desecration of corpses are of a religious nature - something which we believe shouldn't even be legislated on a national level, nevermind impressed upon the many thousands of WA member nations."

[Serrland]

"They're just bodies. We have no particular desire to desecrate the corpses of our enemies (if we have any...), but do not feel that this is a matter for the WA. Most of the taboos regarding desecration of corpses are of a religious nature - something which we believe shouldn't even be legislated on a national level, nevermind impressed upon the many thousands of WA member nations."

Whether or not it is of a religious or cultural nature, the desecration of the deceased serves no real purpose but to humiliate and generally offend. When it is one nation imposing its own lack of suitable respect upon deceased soldiers of another nation, it becomes an international issue, as the wartime deceased are being subjected to treatment that may be grossly offensive, resulting in further escalation, etc.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Sometimes it could have a long lasting effect on attitudes towards the enemy, honoured ambassador, long after the guns fell silent. Once again, Ms. Harper feels that if victors don't want to hold their enemies in their territory, they should at least repatriate them back to their homeland, but what if the enemy collapsed into the hands of the victor is another question.

I'm not entirely certain it is a different question - in the end, it is still a body on a battlefield or some other contested territory. The body of a victor oughn't be treated with more respect than the body of a loser. For the purpose of this proposal, I am entirely reluctant to make any reference at all to winners or losers of a given conflict, as I feel it is, as far as the context of this resolution goes, more or less irrelevent.

But if victors did hold their enemies in their territory I suppose ceremony is not compulsory, is that right?

[Serrland]

I'm not entirely certain it is a different question - in the end, it is still a body on a battlefield or some other contested territory. The body of a victor oughn't be treated with more respect than the body of a loser. For the purpose of this proposal, I am entirely reluctant to make any reference at all to winners or losers of a given conflict, as I feel it is, as far as the context of this resolution goes, more or less irrelevent.

But if victors did hold their enemies in their territory I suppose ceremony is not compulsory, is that right?

No, but per the proposal, they should take appropriate steps towards repatriation of the bodies and should still refrain from engaging in acts of desecration towards the fallen.

[Intellect and the Arts]

Hold on a moment, here! I've been working on other proposals and therefore have just gotten the time to review yours (which is in queue, by the way, so I suppose congrats are in order). I found a problem nobody else appears to have brought to your attention:

GA proposals can't CONDEMN anyone. That's the jurisdiction of the SC. That makes your proposal illegal, so I'd advise submitting a GHR requesting its removal so you can remove that line and resubmit before someone else does. Asking for the removal of your own proposal is fine and dandy, but if someone else reports your proposal, you'll get a strike on your record. I'd advise avoiding that...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Hold on a moment, here! I've been working on other proposals and therefore have just gotten the time to review yours (which is in queue, by the way, so I suppose congrats are in order). I found a problem nobody else appears to have brought to your attention:

GA proposals can't CONDEMN anyone. That's the jurisdiction of the SC. That makes your proposal illegal, so I'd advise submitting a GHR requesting its removal so you can remove that line and resubmit before someone else does. Asking for the removal of your own proposal is fine and dandy, but if someone else reports your proposal, you'll get a strike on your record. I'd advise avoiding that...

I think WA Counterterrorism Act did a clause similar to the one concerned.

[Intellect and the Arts]

I think WA Counterterrorism Act did a clause similar to the one concerned.

WA Counterterrorism Act was passed prior to the creation of the Security Council and therefore wasn't subject to the same rules. The rules changed.