Advertisement
by Jarish Inyo » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:07 am
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:12 am
Velias wrote:The regulamentation proposed on the "rules of surrender" is a good start to recognize war prisoners rights, but anyway it's not sufficient. In fact, the proposal covers only surrenders of a nation ,while it doesn't speak for civil war prisoners or unofficial military groups. This is why The senate and people of Velias reject it, waiting for a clear and complete law for surrender rights.
by The United Peoples of Phyrexxus » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:33 am
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:57 am
The United Peoples of Phyrexxus wrote:Upon reading this new proposal, I have noticed several points that I find to be very restrictive. One of these is that, upon a surrender, I am unable to detain the person the surrendered. This is undesirable, as I find that letting them go will give my opponent no reason to free my detained soldiers. If that were to be changed, I would gladly support this new resolution.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:06 am
Chostea wrote:Pennswald wrote:
Perhaps the Minister has skimmed the resolution too quickly? The resolution does not define "waving a white flag" as signifying surrender but "for the cessation of hostilities and intention to parley" -- in other words, a request to enter negotiations.
If this is your only objection, perhaps you would reconsider your position?
"This is not the only objection that the People's Republic of Chostea wishes to point out, it was merely something to begin with"
There is a long pause.
"As another nation has pointed out, this resolution could be abused, by those who don't 'play by the rules', so to speak. An ambush or something similar could be created, or the opposing forces may change their minds, and allowing such things to be easier to do would be a mistake. Especially if they change their minds again and surrender after breaking the surrender."
Minister Ian opens a folder, one made of leather, with the resolution's documents inside and pulls out one of the sheets of paper.
"The resolution states, in Article I.1, that if they -- that is, the surrendering forces -- wish to surrender, all they need to do is display a symbol of truce. Dropping their weapons right after firing another round of shots, when already believed to have been surrendering. Now they can surrender again, and Chostean lives are pointlessly lost."
"This is completely unacceptable to The People's Republic of Chostea, as it contributes to more losses in war, and neither the administration nor the people will stand for this."
by Chostea » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:27 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Chostea wrote:"Another objection that the Chostean government wishes to bring to attention is that this will greatly slow down advances. It will be like sending our military through goo. Prisoners of war cannot simply be abandoned, they will certainly go to reobtain weapons from whatever their nearest hidden supply cache is, and then there will be nothing stopping them from attacking our advancing army from behind. Leaving people to stay watch is also a poor decision because when outnumbered, a swarm of prisoners can still escape, either by killing him or by running away, and leaving behind yet more personnel will ensure that the advance will lose its effectiveness.
"A graduate of the Ambassador Nameless school of debating, I see, ignoring all rebuttals and continuing on regardless. It's not very compelling.
"You still don't seem to have grasped that the resolution does not require you to accept surrenders. If it would be as injurious as you claim, then why would anyone voluntarily choose to do so?
"Furthermore, the WA has required certain treatment of prisoners of war for over six years. This proposal is not introducing any new problem."Any form of condemnation that this assembly may bring up after
"The World Assembly does not have a mechanism for condemnations, so that's irrelevant."
~ Daisy Chinmusic
by Valsyvir » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:36 am
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:45 am
Valsyvir wrote:No stipulation is made within this resolution for the handling of Unlawful Combatants. By agreeing to this resolution we would be forced to treat Unlawful Combatants as PoWs upon accepting their surrender. Unacceptable. The esteemed representative for the Confederation of Valsyvir votes AGAINST.
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:51 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Valsyvir wrote:No stipulation is made within this resolution for the handling of Unlawful Combatants. By agreeing to this resolution we would be forced to treat Unlawful Combatants as PoWs upon accepting their surrender. Unacceptable. The esteemed representative for the Confederation of Valsyvir votes AGAINST.
"What exactly do you mean by Unlawful Combatant? There isn't any law making a distinction between a normal combatant and an unlawful one, so the distinction is meaningless."
by Panait » Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:06 am
...1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and do not constitute an outrage of personal dignity, and;...
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:20 am
Panait wrote:...1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and do not constitute an outrage of personal dignity, and;...
"It is of our concern that an apparent lack of definition of an 'outrage of personal dignity' would lead to ambiguity; we may have missed it somewhere, though. We also believe that 'legal' is defined as in accordance with passed WA resolutions, but would national laws between the combatants factor into this?"
"Beyond mind-boggling semantics, though, this resolution has our nation's full support."
by Panait » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:09 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"The concept of a personal outrage of dignity seemed pretty straightforwards, but it was written, originally, with the ICC in existence, where incidents arising from insults to dignity could be properly hashed out. I left it in so that, when some mechanism for judging these incidents comes about, individuals who refuse to comply with terms of surrender and are killed because, say, they wouldn't strip naked, and the appropriate party is punished.
"It isn't ideal, but I should hope that most nations understand enough to be effectively in compliance."
by Frustrated Franciscans » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:18 am
by Valsyvir » Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:08 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"What exactly do you mean by Unlawful Combatant? There isn't any law making a distinction between a normal combatant and an unlawful one, so the distinction is meaningless."
"Furthermore, unlawful combatants fall into a loophole in The Prisoners of War Accord, in that they do not fit the definition of "Prisoners of War", "civilian internees", or "military internees".
"Hence reprisals against them would - we would argue - be perfectly legal."
~ Daisy Chinmusic
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:25 pm
Valsyvir wrote:The esteemed Foreign Minister of the Confederation of Valsyvir disputes this stance.
The Prisoner of War Accord DEFINES a PoW as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform OR where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation. It further MANDATES that PoWs and civilian and military internees receive certain privileges. Wording infers that the three categories are separate and distinct.
The Foreign Minister of the Confederation of Valsyvir feels that Unlawful Combatants (Terrorists, Guerillas) are obviously an opposing armed force and would therefore benefit from being treated as PoWs in accord with both resolutions if captured. If this resolution passes, our new policy will be to reject surrender of all suspected Unlawful Combatants so as not to extend privileges to these despicable savages. Our vote remains AGAINST.
by Valsyvir » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:05 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Part of the problem is we're talking about something ("unlawful combatants") that isn't defined in international law. So both you and I can pretty much define that term to mean whatever we like in making our point. If the WA had better laws on war, this would all be much clearer, but sadly, that is impossible with the roadblock of Rights & Duties in the way.
"We consider 'armed forces' to be inherently limited to state actors, and therefore the WA definition of 'terrorist' does not apply (as it is limited to non-state actors). We would be satisfied to defend that interpretation to legal challenge. But 'guerillas' would, probably, receive protection from us: we should not conflate an unlawful combatant with an irregular combatant.
"Again, though, as these terms have meaning in international law, it's academic."
~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:02 pm
Valsyvir wrote:...To prevent the inexcusable extension of privileges to what WE consider “Unlawful Combatants”, the Armed Forces of the Confederation of Valsyvir will no longer accept ANY surrender, should we ever be engaged in combat, as the current state of definition is so ambiguous. As we will not accept surrenders, we cannot be party to the Rules of Surrender, in assent or denial, and so we change our AGAINST vote to abstention.
We fully recognize that this will expose our personnel, should they attempt surrender, to similar treatment, and so we implore this body to pass a “Law of War” or amend this proposed resolution to include a specific exclusion to “Unlawful Combatants”.
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:16 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I'm unaware of any other characteristic act or behavior that sets aside some combatants as "lawful" and others as "unlawful," barring completely arbitrary criteria. Therefore, I simply don't see how your objections carry any force, and I'd urge your government to do the right thing, if not for human rights that set WA members apart from terrorists and other war criminals in the first place, then for the benefit of your own armed forces.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:29 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:
"That is at least extremely questionable (our office maintains that it is in fact complete bullshit, but the Secretariat sees it differently). The visible text of WA Resolution #25 applies only to 'non-state actors': state actors (such as members of armed forces) who target civilians are not only not terrorists, but not breaking any WA laws given that WA Resolution #293 legalised the deliberate targeting and even indiscriminate murder of civilians.
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I'm unaware of any other characteristic act or behavior that sets aside some combatants as "lawful" and others as "unlawful," barring completely arbitrary criteria. Therefore, I simply don't see how your objections carry any force, and I'd urge your government to do the right thing, if not for human rights that set WA members apart from terrorists and other war criminals in the first place, then for the benefit of your own armed forces.
"While we don't entirely agree with the interpretation or response of the honourable representative from Valsyvir, we also think you're being unnecessarily dismissive of the idea. There isn't such a distinction in current international law, but it's not exactly unthinkable that one could be carved out: we just need to pass more laws of war first to be able to distinguish between lawful and unlawful combatants. It's the year 2014 and the WA still considers the murder of civilians to be legally permissible."
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:42 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:In which case, they're simply ordinary military forces, no? If #25 counts against state actors, any military forces that engage in "terrorism" are subject to it; if not, there's nothing to suggest that they are not deserving of the protections outlined herein.
by Warpspace » Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:57 pm
by Normlpeople » Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:40 am
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:57 am
Xianlong wrote:Upon reading this text, the Council of Ministers have one question: does this cover irregular forces also? Or do the rules of surrender only apply to uniformed and clearly defined enemies?
Normlpeople wrote:"I shall place a vote FOR. I shall offer early congratulations on your first successful proposal." Clover motions as an aide delivers an unmarked paper bag to Ambassador Bell's desk. "Draco Mountains finest whisky. Enjoy it in celebration!"
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:08 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:In which case, they're simply ordinary military forces, no? If #25 counts against state actors, any military forces that engage in "terrorism" are subject to it; if not, there's nothing to suggest that they are not deserving of the protections outlined herein.
"But I think the argument is that what makes them 'not deserving' is their basic lack of regard for the laws of war.
"Please don't mistake my argument as opposing this resolution - our delegation has been strongly supportive from the outset. We're just clarifying our position that the WA's laws of war are still very raw, especially since WA Resolution #293 legalised most war crimes."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement