

Bassein wrote:3. REAFFIRMS in this regard that parties to armed conflict bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of affected civilians, in particular giving attention to the specific needs of women and children;
5. UNDERLINES the importance of safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to provide assistance to civilians in armed conflict in accordance with international law, and stresses the importance,within the framework of humanitarian assistance, of upholding and respecting the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence;
Amen.

Bassein wrote:7. CALLS UPON all nations to adhere to the International Human Rights Charter and thereby work progressively towards this cause.


Gobbannium wrote:We are puzzled as to what this proposal does that merits a Significant strength. It condemns practices that are already illegal, makes them illegal again, repeats that nations should obey international law just in case we hadn't heard the previous two occasions, and attempts to interest us in a charter whose existence we had not previously been aware of. We are struggling to find enough that it actually does to make this worthy of Mild strength, to be completely honest.
Grays Harbor wrote:Gobbannium wrote:We are puzzled as to what this proposal does that merits a Significant strength. It condemns practices that are already illegal, makes them illegal again, repeats that nations should obey international law just in case we hadn't heard the previous two occasions, and attempts to interest us in a charter whose existence we had not previously been aware of. We are struggling to find enough that it actually does to make this worthy of Mild strength, to be completely honest.
His Majesty and the entire Cabinet have requested I pass along to you that they are quite amused by your description of this proposal, and have determined that they like your style.


"So be it" is offensive?New Olwe wrote:Amen.
There was no need to put that at the end of your resolution. To non-Christians it's offensive.
The Most Glorious Hack wrote:"So be it" is offensive?


Name Unavailable wrote:It would impossible to not harm citizens in any type of full-blown war. Despite the hardships placed on a country due to a war, there is also the fact that many types of warfare involve using weapons that cause great damage. Also both invaders and defenders of all types throughout history have been known to use the locals as sheilds, hostages, etc., and many fortifications and bases during wartime are resident in civilian homes as well as near heavily populated areas.
A good proposistion, but not one that will be effective.

Bergnovinaia wrote:Name Unavailable wrote:It would impossible to not harm citizens in any type of full-blown war. Despite the hardships placed on a country due to a war, there is also the fact that many types of warfare involve using weapons that cause great damage. Also both invaders and defenders of all types throughout history have been known to use the locals as sheilds, hostages, etc., and many fortifications and bases during wartime are resident in civilian homes as well as near heavily populated areas.
A good proposistion, but not one that will be effective.
I'm curious if this could be considered a grave-dig. Perhaps not...

Users browsing this forum: The Emmerian Unions, TurboKill