[TABLED] Considerations for Occupations

[Separatist Peoples]

"The next in the series..."

Considerations for Occupations
Human Rights | Mild

---

Noting the military necessity to occupy territory in armed conflict;

Seeking to protect those civilians who, through no personal fault and with no recourse, find themselves in occupied territory, and;

Ensuring a fair balance between strategic considerations and the protection of human rights;

The General Assembly determines:

Occupied territory shall be defined as those territories that have been placed under the temporary authority of a hostile or foreign military.

Occupying forces, to the fullest possible extent, must:

Refrain from wanton violence, hostage-taking, and collective reprisals against civilians or their property within an occupied territory.

Refrain from compulsion of the occupied population to raise arms or labor to the advantage of prolonging any conflict.

Provide an administrative and legal system to provide food, water, medical care, public order, and safety for the inhabitants of an occupied territory. Occupation forces may delegate these responsibilities to the local government.

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

Refrain from seizure of private property that is not commonly considered war materiel.

Immediately tender receipts for seizure of any private war materiel and any seized public property, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

Allow both World Assembly organizations and independent humanitarian entities access to all occupied territory and civilians within to carry out their humanitarian duties.

Treat the violation of these provisions by an individual or group as a war crime, and prosecute accordingly. Member states shall be entirely responsible for the actions of mercenary elements contracted as or within their occupying force that would otherwise be outside the purview of WA authority, and are fully culpable for their actions.

Occupying militaries have the authority to:

Levy taxes, proportionate to the territory’s ability to pay, for administrative necessities of the occupation, so long as such income does not fund protraction of the conflict.

Recruit volunteers for military service from within an occupied territory.

Compel compensated civic service within an occupied territory, provided it directly benefits the occupation effort and not protraction of the conflict.

Respond with proportionate force to open aggression by civilians against the occupying forces, and punish individuals, after a fair and open trial, who actively attempt to destabilize the occupation.

Extract and utilize natural resources of an occupied area at discretion, provided they immediately tender receipts to the rightful owners for seizure of any natural resources and damages incurred, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

Member states are obligated to end the occupation of a territory in a reasonable timeframe after hostilities are concluded.

"Its a miserable wall of text right now. Yes. I know. Better formatting will follow shortly. (OOC: The coding is a pain for me, so I'll attack it after I have this up.) Its at about 2,500 characters, and deliberately avoids the topic of forcible relocation of civilians, which would make an excellent free-standing draft, and one I do NOT want to attempt, despite being an integral part of this sort of issue. So...go for it."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"This is a suitably excellent idea for a proposal. It reminds me a little of Civilian Rights Post War, one of the NSUN's better humanitarian resolutions.

"Assuming the nitpicking of language and details can be left for later, two broader points occur.

"The first is that you probably need a better definition, and in particular, one that clarifies the 'temporary' nature of military occupation i.e. that military occupation should end or make arrangements to end once hostilities have been concluded.

"The second is that nations should not be allowed to contract or treaty or otherwise engage another party to take occupation of a territory on their behalf, so as to prevent member nations employing mercenary armies of non-WA nations willing to ignore international law for them.

"We look forward to progress on this draft."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Chester Pearson]

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA



IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

HELL NO! How in the hell are we supposed to incorporate nations within The Federation if we allow them full control over their won laws? I am somewhat warm to this whole idea, but this clause is a deal breaker.

Warmest regards,

[Separatist Peoples]

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA

([url=http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b631/Unitedfederationofcanada/image_zps622bb208.jpg]Image)[/url]

IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

HELL NO! How in the hell are we supposed to incorporate nations within The Federation if we allow them full control over their won laws? I am somewhat warm to this whole idea, but this clause is a deal breaker.

Warmest regards,

"Ambassador, you'll find that this deliberately makes no allowances for annexation, which would be permenant. Provided you annex an occupied territory, you're welcome to alter laws. This deals entirely with temporary occupations, though I realize I have yet to clear up all the nuanced language that will back my statement up. In short: this doesn't affect or stop imperialistic expansion."

OOC: think post-WW2 West Germany: occupied but not absorbed into the territory of her occupiers.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is a suitably excellent idea for a proposal. It reminds me a little of Civilian Rights Post War, one of the NSUN's better humanitarian resolutions.

"Assuming the nitpicking of language and details can be left for later, two broader points occur.

"The first is that you probably need a better definition, and in particular, one that clarifies the 'temporary' nature of military occupation i.e. that military occupation should end or make arrangements to end once hostilities have been concluded.

"The second is that nations should not be allowed to contract or treaty or otherwise engage another party to take occupation of a territory on their behalf, so as to prevent member nations employing mercenary armies of non-WA nations willing to ignore international law for them.

"We look forward to progress on this draft."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

"I've made alterations as per your suggestions, Ms. Chinmusic. I hope that they will clear the air somewhat for other ambassadors as to the intended scope. I'll make a general announcement once I've tackled that damnable formatting so your delegation's notoriously sharp eyes can begin the shredding of whatever I miss. As always, your input is invaluable."

[Ainocra]

I don't think I can see my way to supporting this. There are far too many things to consider during a war for this approach to be successful. I would suggest breaking this down into several tightly targeted proposals.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think I can see my way to supporting this. There are far too many things to consider during a war for this approach to be successful. I would suggest breaking this down into several tightly targeted proposals.

"I'd love to. So much that I tried. There's not quite enough to legislate on, I found, without micromanaging. I'm open to suggestions, though."

[Ainocra]

Refrain from seizure of private property that is not commonly considered war materiel.

Immediately tender receipts for seizure of any private war materiel and any seized public property, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

I could see writing a whole resolution around this bit as a prevention of wartime looting, perhaps even expand it a bit to cover art and the like.

Provide an administrative and legal system to provide food, water, medical care, public order, and safety for the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

Allow both World Assembly organizations and independent humanitarian entities access to all occupied territory and civilians within to carry out their humanitarian duties.

I could see combining these two into a humanitarian relief bill

but all together I would think the idea too much for one bill.

[Jarish Inyo]

The government of Jarish Inyo is torn on this proposal. We can not support the following sections of the proposal.

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

Refrain from seizure of private property that is not commonly considered war materiel.

Immediately tender receipts for seizure of any private war materiel and any seized public property, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

Allow both World Assembly organizations and independent humanitarian entities access to all occupied territory and civilians within to carry out their humanitarian duties.

We will not respect the laws of any occupied nation. The administrators of the occupation will decide what laws to enact within the region.

The CO's and administrators will decide what is required to maintain the occupying force and seize it from the locals. They will not issue receipts for said items. Nor will they pay for them if the occupation ends.

We do not acknowledge that the WA or independent humanitarian organizations has the right to access any area that is currently under military occupation.

[Normlpeople]

I don't think I can see my way to supporting this. There are far too many things to consider during a war for this approach to be successful. I would suggest breaking this down into several tightly targeted proposals.

"I am afraid I must concur with this assessment. I do think there can be several proposals here. That said, two of my primary concerns are as follows:"

Refrain from seizure of private property that is not commonly considered war materiel.

Immediately tender receipts for seizure of any private war materiel and any seized public property, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

"To the victor go the spoils as it were. There is a difference between seizing civilian assets and seizing the gun and ammunition a civilian has, that being, in occupied territory, one is a threat and the other isn't. As it is not wise to give potential combatants the means to shoot you in the back upon leaving, this would seem difficult to agree to return the weapon.

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

"So, the law states that we must pray to diety X several times a day. I doubt many would agree to that, indeed in our current occupation situation on our southern boarder, such a law exists. I don't see this being agreeable to many. Occupied territory is seen as our own, and our own law is all that our soldiers should follow"

"In both cases, stolen art and civilian protection from specific crimes could be resolutions on their own I believe. Then again, I shall watch and see how this evolves."

[Louisistan]

OOC: think post-WW2 West Germany: occupied but not absorbed into the territory of her occupiers.

OOC: IC response will follow as soon as I can cook up one.

It's interesting you chose post-WW2 Germany, because it meets none of your criteria.

placed under the temporary authority of a hostile or foreign military.

The military part holds true until the establishment of the Allied High Commission in 1949. The High Commissioners were themselves civilians. Nonetheless I think no German would claim that Germany wasn't occupied during its "reign". E.g. laws passed by the Federal Diet had to be approved by the High Commission.
As for the temporary authority: When Germany was occupied in 1945 it was by no means determined how long the allied forces would stay. Now, we may be able to argue the point if the occupation ended in 1955 when the Occupation Statute was replaced but sovereignty was not fully granted before 1990, as the allied governments still had several powers to interfere in German affairs (and let's not even touch the circling conspiracies about whether or not Germany is sovereign today).

To wit: Your definition needs work. Just because the military is there doesn't necessarily mean the territory has been placed under its authority. The authority may well be exercised by civilians. Also, there are cases where a territory is occupied indefinitely and cases where the occupying force fully intends to leave some day, but doesn't know when that will be.

[Bears Armed]

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

"But hwhat if "the laws in force" allow interrogation by torture, or something else that is against WA legsislation.... maybeso even genocide?!?"

OOC: Returning to the subject of post-WW2 Germany, wouldn't a rule like this have barred the Allies from cancelling [for example] the Nazis' anti-Jewish laws?

[Separatist Peoples]

Refrain from seizure of private property that is not commonly considered war materiel.

Immediately tender receipts for seizure of any private war materiel and any seized public property, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

I could see writing a whole resolution around this bit as a prevention of wartime looting, perhaps even expand it a bit to cover art and the like.

“That, I suppose, I could see. I have no issues splitting these issues off and starting a separate proposal.”

Provide an administrative and legal system to provide food, water, medical care, public order, and safety for the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

Allow both World Assembly organizations and independent humanitarian entities access to all occupied territory and civilians within to carry out their humanitarian duties.

I could see combining these two into a humanitarian relief bill

but all together I would think the idea too much for one bill.

“I see no reason why this cannot be included and also supplemented with a humanitarian relief bill, ambassador. This requires that occupying forces take the onus of caring for their wards, preventing them from forcing humanitarian commissions to foot the bill entirely. At any rate, somebody else will have to draft that one, because my plate is quite full as it is. I appreciate your sharp eye on this, and will make adjustments accordingly.”

The government of Jarish Inyo is torn on this proposal. We can not support the following sections of the proposal.

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

Refrain from seizure of private property that is not commonly considered war materiel.

Immediately tender receipts for seizure of any private war materiel and any seized public property, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

Allow both World Assembly organizations and independent humanitarian entities access to all occupied territory and civilians within to carry out their humanitarian duties.

We will not respect the laws of any occupied nation. The administrators of the occupation will decide what laws to enact within the region.

The CO's and administrators will decide what is required to maintain the occupying force and seize it from the locals. They will not issue receipts for said items. Nor will they pay for them if the occupation ends.

We do not acknowledge that the WA or independent humanitarian organizations has the right to access any area that is currently under military occupation.

“The government of Jarish Inyo has proven, time and time again, that it not only cares little for the human rights and dignity of others, but that it’s sense of national sovereignty is, often, incompatible with the mechanisms of the World Assembly. I care little about how you feel about this, as it is clear you would prefer the World Assembly turn a blind eye to a Cardassian-style systematic rape, murder, oppression, and highway robbery of a population. When you have a specific concern about a concept, raise it, and I will address it. Keep your blustering elsewhere.”

OOC: It helps to note that these requirements are the same that Real World nations abide by satisfactorily. There is very little “new” material in this draft.

"I am afraid I must concur with this assessment. I do think there can be several proposals here. That said, two of my primary concerns are as follows:"

Refrain from seizure of private property that is not commonly considered war materiel.

Immediately tender receipts for seizure of any private war materiel and any seized public property, to be honored at the end of hostilities.

"To the victor go the spoils as it were. There is a difference between seizing civilian assets and seizing the gun and ammunition a civilian has, that being, in occupied territory, one is a threat and the other isn't. As it is not wise to give potential combatants the means to shoot you in the back upon leaving, this would seem difficult to agree to return the weapon.

“’To the victor go the spoils’? I expected that level of barbarity from others, but not Clover the Clever. World Assembly nations should be above petty looting. The difference between public property and private property is the important difference. In one case, one is taking from the state, who is an active enemy. In the other, you are dealing with a private citizen who may have had no part in the conflict at all, and who deserves no reprisal and a fair exchange, as he is not your enemy. If a civilian has war material, well, it’s a bone I threw to occupying militaries, to make this more palatable, but there is no reason the WA should legalize theft: you pay for what you take.”

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

"So, the law states that we must pray to diety X several times a day. I doubt many would agree to that, indeed in our current occupation situation on our southern boarder, such a law exists. I don't see this being agreeable to many. Occupied territory is seen as our own, and our own law is all that our soldiers should follow"

"In both cases, stolen art and civilian protection from specific crimes could be resolutions on their own I believe. Then again, I shall watch and see how this evolves."

“There was a caveat for the laws that interfere with the effectiveness of the occupation, but that can be made clearer. The intention was to avoid the dissolution of all laws, turning an occupied zone into a bloody anarchy.”

OOC: think post-WW2 West Germany: occupied but not absorbed into the territory of her occupiers.

OOC: IC response will follow as soon as I can cook up one.

It's interesting you chose post-WW2 Germany, because it meets none of your criteria.

placed under the temporary authority of a hostile or foreign military.

The military part holds true until the establishment of the Allied High Commission in 1949. The High Commissioners were themselves civilians. Nonetheless I think no German would claim that Germany wasn't occupied during its "reign". E.g. laws passed by the Federal Diet had to be approved by the High Commission.
As for the temporary authority: When Germany was occupied in 1945 it was by no means determined how long the allied forces would stay. Now, we may be able to argue the point if the occupation ended in 1955 when the Occupation Statute was replaced but sovereignty was not fully granted before 1990, as the allied governments still had several powers to interfere in German affairs (and let's not even touch the circling conspiracies about whether or not Germany is sovereign today).

To wit: Your definition needs work. Just because the military is there doesn't necessarily mean the territory has been placed under its authority. The authority may well be exercised by civilians. Also, there are cases where a territory is occupied indefinitely and cases where the occupying force fully intends to leave some day, but doesn't know when that will be.

OOC: I won’t debate, in full, the political situation of post-WW2 Germany with you here, but I would argue that the military occupation of West Germany ending classifies it as temporary. The Western Powers, at any rate, didn’t intend to keep Germany under permanently full military occupation, as I’ve heard it, if only because the costs would be so great. I’m being careful to avoid mentioning what the Soviets did, which amounts, effectively, to annexation, because annexing a territory is not the same as occupying it.

However, I think codifying every possible nuance of occupation law into WA law is impossible. There are only so many characters per proposal that can be used, thus the shortcut ensuring that occupations end in a reasonable timeframe at the conclusion of hostilities. I would be more than happy to take suggestions on an improved definition.

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

"But hwhat if "the laws in force" allow interrogation by torture, or something else that is against WA legsislation.... maybeso even genocide?!?"

OOC: Returning to the subject of post-WW2 Germany, wouldn't a rule like this have barred the Allies from cancelling [for example] the Nazis' anti-Jewish laws?

“Ambassador, thank you. There really ought to be a caveat of “Pursuant to WA Law” tucked into that, which will allow the suspension of laws not amenable to WA law and the preservation of those which are, effectively, harmless to the occupation. Like laws against murder, something others would apparently enjoy seen done away with.”

[Jarish Inyo]

I've raised specific concerns about and you did not address them. In fact you went on a rant on what you think of my nations government. Yet went on to answer those same concerns from ambassadors that raised some of those same concerns after my comment. The government of Jarish Inyo does not support Cardassian-style systematic rape, murder, oppression, and highway robbery of a population.

Why should an occupying force respect the laws of the occupied territory? What is considered common war material? Why should the occupying force pay for private war materiel and any seized public property? Why should the occupying force allow WA and other independent humanitarian entities into the occupied territory? Why does the WA and independent humanitarian entities believe they have the right to enter the occupied territory?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"If this were to be divided into two proposals, one could focus on collective punishment* and one on confiscation. But, critics charging that this proposal is too broad don't seem to have picked on many specifics. Without doing so it's very difficult to assess what problems such a wide scope actually poses!

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

"This should only apply where those laws are compliant with World Assembly obligations. For example, a WA member occupying a non-member should have no responsibility to respect their law restricting abortion.

Provide an administrative and legal system to provide food, water, medical care, public order, and safety for the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

"Education should perhaps be included too.

Respond with proportionate force to open aggression by civilians against the occupying forces, and punish individuals, after a fair and open trial, who actively attempt to destabilize the occupation.

"Given the discussion of 'unlawful combatants' in a prior debate, I'm wondering how this proposal treats partisans, irregulars, paramilitary agents, and other grey areas between 'military' and 'civilian'. I also don't agree that there should be a requirement of an 'open' trial: so long as the trial is fair by WA standards, restrictions on prejudicial reporting are permitted.

"It's early days to be thinking about these things, but I would be inclined to bump this up to 'Significant' strength."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

* I'm still annoyed about that :/ That could have been a good proposal and I only dropped it in good faith because I genuinely thought Three Weasels was going to proceed with their draft instead.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why should an occupying force respect the laws of the occupied territory?

“Those laws are often the basic protections that a community has to protect themselves, their property, and their culture. Stepping in and removing laws against murder, assault, and rape puts a civilian population even more at the mercy of an enemy with a monopoly on violence then they were before. If an occupying power has to respect the laws in place, then they cannot disregard the local concerns and customs that bind a community or protect them. The ambassador from Bears Armed did a lovely job pointing out the issue, wherein I could adequately address it. You made a sabre-rattling statement about how your nation has no intention of recognizing blah blah…”

What is considered common war material?

“It seemed pretty obvious to me: material necessary for the protraction of war. The term was “commonly considered war material”, which should assuage most concerns about definition wanking: if it isn’t commonly used in the protraction of war, then it isn’t war material.”

Why should the occupying force pay for private war materiel and any seized public property?

“I don’t know, Ambassador Nameless, why should anybody pay for what they take? Why should theft be stopped at all? Why would a civilian population, with no means of resisting, not need to be compensated when a heavily armed military force takes away that which they have worked hard for? The civilians of a nation are not the enemy, therefore their property is entitled to different treatment. As for public property, I addressed that in a previous comment: public property is, essentially, owned by the state, which is the enemy in a conflict. A military may seize the assets of an enemy. However, since an occupation is temporary, that which they take collectively hurts the occupied territory’s inhabitants the same way theft of property hurts the individual. If it is a serious concern, I will specify that compensation must be meted out for public civilian property.”

Why should the occupying force allow WA and other independent humanitarian entities into the occupied territory? Why does the WA and independent humanitarian entities believe they have the right to enter the occupied territory?

“Yes, why should neutral, independent entities, seeking only to help those affected, be allowed to relieve a humanitarian crisis where one exists? Maybe because sapient beings are deserving of a few basic necessities by virtue of being sapient beings and these organizations seek to provide them? Likewise, there is no reason a nation should be allowed to bar World Assembly investigators from enforcing WA law.”

[Jarish Inyo]

“Those laws are often the basic protections that a community has to protect themselves, their property, and their culture. Stepping in and removing laws against murder, assault, and rape puts a civilian population even more at the mercy of an enemy with a monopoly on violence then they were before. If an occupying power has to respect the laws in place, then they cannot disregard the local concerns and customs that bind a community or protect them. The ambassador from Bears Armed did a lovely job pointing out the issue, wherein I could adequately address it. You made a sabre-rattling statement about how your nation has no intention of recognizing blah blah…”

Laws do not protect cultures and customs. An occupying force can respect local laws and still disregard them and enact their own laws. Respecting local laws are not the same as obeying and enforcing local laws. It also offers no protection for the civilians.

“It seemed pretty obvious to me: material necessary for the protraction of war. The term was “commonly considered war material”, which should assuage most concerns about definition wanking: if it isn’t commonly used in the protraction of war, then it isn’t war material.”

In this, we will have to disagree. In my opinion, any item can be used in the protraction of war.

“I don’t know, Ambassador Nameless, why should anybody pay for what they take? Why should theft be stopped at all? Why would a civilian population, with no means of resisting, not need to be compensated when a heavily armed military force takes away that which they have worked hard for? The civilians of a nation are not the enemy, therefore their property is entitled to different treatment. As for public property, I addressed that in a previous comment: public property is, essentially, owned by the state, which is the enemy in a conflict. A military may seize the assets of an enemy. However, since an occupation is temporary, that which they take collectively hurts the occupied territory’s inhabitants the same way theft of property hurts the individual. If it is a serious concern, I will specify that compensation must be meted out for public civilian property.”

Seizing is not theft. And why would an occupying force leave dangerous war material in the hands of people that can use it against them? And citizens of a nation is the enemy. Where does the enemy get it's soldiers? Who makes the weapons and equipment. Who grows and prepares the food? Civilians property is not entitled to a different treatment then that of who you define as the enemy.

[quote“Yes, why should neutral, independent entities, seeking only to help those affected, be allowed to relieve a humanitarian crisis where one exists? Maybe because sapient beings are deserving of a few basic necessities by virtue of being sapient beings and these organizations seek to provide them? Likewise, there is no reason a nation should be allowed to bar World Assembly investigators from enforcing WA law.”][/quote]

Since this proposal already requires that the occupying force provide the same necessities that independent entities would provide, then why should they be let into the occupying territory? And where would the humanitarian crisis be while the occupying force is providing food, water, and medical care?

If the WA wants to send an inspector gnome, so be it. No nation is responsible for the protection of the inspector. Let them wander where they want.

[Separatist Peoples]

Laws do not protect cultures and customs. An occupying force can respect local laws and still disregard them and enact their own laws. Respecting local laws are not the same as obeying and enforcing local laws. It also offers no protection for the civilians.

“And if Jarish Inyo was invaded, and the occupiers were to disregard every law, legalizing rape, murder, and forced self-degradation, you would be of the opinion that they had every right to turn the legal structure of your home upside down? I don’t believe you would. If a particular law is a direct threat or obstacle to the occupation, nations are allowed to suspend it. That is all the exception needed.”

In this, we will have to disagree. In my opinion, any item can be used in the protraction of war.

“How the fuck are you supposed to use a grandfather clock to protract war?! Any individual with an iota of common sense will figure out that “War Materials” is as specific a term as “currency” is in my anti-counterfeiting draft. It shouldn’t require extensive definition.”

Seizing is not theft. And why would an occupying force leave dangerous war material in the hands of people that can use it against them? And citizens of a nation is the enemy. Where does the enemy get it's soldiers? Who makes the weapons and equipment. Who grows and prepares the food? Civilians property is not entitled to a different treatment then that of who you define as the enemy.

“How is seizing property without permission or compensation not theft? If citizens are the enemy, then clearly the proper response to finding a civilian population is to shoot them, by your bizarre interpretation. Short of a nation engaging in absolute, total war, civilians are perfectly capable of producing goods not directly utilized in warfare. Other resolutions have made exceptions for industries and locations directly affecting warfare, like armament factories, but to claim that a sustenance farmer’s homestead is directly contributing to conflict? You’re absolutely, utterly delusional, ambassador, and I sure as hell won’t be bending over backwards to win your approval when you’re so clearly invested in harming the defenseless.
“Not all war material is a pile of assault rifles and rocket launchers. Seizing rations, radios, tires, mess kits, parachutes, and vehicle fuel would all count, and could likewise all be part of an individual’s livelihood. If you ran a gas station and an occupying army swept in and took your gasoline, where would you be without compensation? This seeks to protect civilians from unnecessary abuse at the hands of the unethical masses like Jarish Inyo, who think deliberately and maliciously destroying the livelihood of a citizen is reasonable.”

Since this proposal already requires that the occupying force provide the same necessities that independent entities would provide, then why should they be let into the occupying territory? And where would the humanitarian crisis be while the occupying force is providing food, water, and medical care?

“Surely, you aren’t about to claim that every single occupation example in the history of the world has been between modern powers with copious excess? Is it somehow unreasonable to expect a shortage or disease that may be beyond the scope of the occupying power alone to handle?”

If the WA wants to send an inspector gnome, so be it. No nation is responsible for the protection of the inspector. Let them wander where they want.

“Goddamit…ambassador, that is what I’m trying to do: prevent nations from baring their entry and prevent them from shooting inspectors off hand.”

[Normlpeople]

“’To the victor go the spoils’? I expected that level of barbarity from others, but not Clover the Clever. World Assembly nations should be above petty looting. The difference between public property and private property is the important difference. In one case, one is taking from the state, who is an active enemy. In the other, you are dealing with a private citizen who may have had no part in the conflict at all, and who deserves no reprisal and a fair exchange, as he is not your enemy. If a civilian has war material, well, it’s a bone I threw to occupying militaries, to make this more palatable, but there is no reason the WA should legalize theft: you pay for what you take.”

Clover shook her head furiously "No no no, that's not what I meant at all! I was making reference to the idea with that statement, not condoning or support it! I do agree that the WA should not legalize theft, I would like to see it changed to an outright ban on seizure of non-military assets, with exceptions for requests and items of significant monetary or cultural value, and even then, only in coordination with the owners. Military assets are another issue however, with no guarantee that the enemy has infiltrated occupied territory, it is prudent to remove these items from potentially unfriendly hands. War is dynamic, and it may be necessary to use or expend these items during it. That is what I refer to."

[Jarish Inyo]

[quote“And if Jarish Inyo was invaded, and the occupiers were to disregard every law, legalizing rape, murder, and forced self-degradation, you would be of the opinion that they had every right to turn the legal structure of your home upside down? I don’t believe you would. If a particular law is a direct threat or obstacle to the occupation, nations are allowed to suspend it. That is all the exception needed.”
][/quote]

Again, respecting local laws are not the same as obeying and enforcing local laws. Your argument does not hold here. Also all local laws can be seen as an obstacle to the occupation. It is also in conflict with the requirement that occupying forces Provide an administrative and legal system.

“How is seizing property without permission or compensation not theft? If citizens are the enemy, then clearly the proper response to finding a civilian population is to shoot them, by your bizarre interpretation. Short of a nation engaging in absolute, total war, civilians are perfectly capable of producing goods not directly utilized in warfare. Other resolutions have made exceptions for industries and locations directly affecting warfare, like armament factories, but to claim that a sustenance farmer’s homestead is directly contributing to conflict? You’re absolutely, utterly delusional, ambassador, and I sure as hell won’t be bending over backwards to win your approval when you’re so clearly invested in harming the defenseless.”

I'm not delusional or have a clear interest in harming the defenseless. I just don't agree with you and pointing out a different point of view.

Seizing without permission id not theft. Governments can seize property without permission or compensation. And the occupying force would be government and would have the right to seize property. A sustenance farmer's homestead can directly contribute to the conflict. It can provide food to enemy troops or irregulars.

“Not all war material is a pile of assault rifles and rocket launchers. Seizing rations, radios, tires, mess kits, parachutes, and vehicle fuel would all count, and could likewise all be part of an individual’s livelihood. If you ran a gas station and an occupying army swept in and took your gasoline, where would you be without compensation? This seeks to protect civilians from unnecessary abuse at the hands of the unethical masses like Jarish Inyo, who think deliberately and maliciously destroying the livelihood of a citizen is reasonable.”

Jarish Inyo is not an unethical nation. But if it helps you sleep at night, continue to think so and call me names.

Why shouldn't an occupying force not seize the gasoline? It is a dangerous war material. It can be used to injury and destroy equipment? Seizing the gasoline also prevents the station owner from raising prices to unreasonable amounts. Rations, radios, tires, mess kits, parachutes are items that are used by enemy military troops and irregulars. Seizing them will ensure that they do not end up in enemy hands.

“Surely, you aren’t about to claim that every single occupation example in the history of the world has been between modern powers with copious excess? Is it somehow unreasonable to expect a shortage or disease that may be beyond the scope of the occupying power alone to handle?”

We are not talking about historical examples of occupation. We are talking about what this proposal would do if passed. It would require military planners to ensure that they plan for having to provide food, water and medical care for territory that they will occupy. It also takes away the need for humanitarian efforts. And yes, it is unreasonable to expect shortage or disease to be beyond the scope of the occupying forces. Neither just don't pop up suddenly.

“Goddamit…ambassador, that is what I’m trying to do: prevent nations from baring their entry and prevent them from shooting inspectors off hand.”

I did not state anything about barring the inspection gnomes from entering the nation. I said let them roam where they want. Other then granting the WA entry into the occupy territory, you do not prevent the occupying force to shot the inspectors off hand. Not that I even suggested that. I just pointed out that no nation is required to protect them from civilians that may want to do them harm.

[Lumeau]

I agree with many of my counterparts that the "respecting local law" clause is unworkable. If an army is occupying a certain area of a foreign territory, whoever's controlling that army probably doesn't like the local laws in the first place.

The gist of the resolution seems to be "don't mistreat civilians in occupied territory." The "respecting local law" clause doesn't really do anything to further that goal, especially considering the rest of the resolution seems to offer adequate protection to civilians.

Furthermore, an invading army will probably run afoul of that clause simply by occupying the territory. I understand what you are trying to do, but again, I really think it's unworkable and would be a nightmare to enforce in any case.

Other than that clause, I think this is a finely-drafted resolution. Lumeau will approve this once submitted.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If this were to be divided into two proposals, one could focus on collective punishment* and one on confiscation. But, critics charging that this proposal is too broad don't seem to have picked on many specifics. Without doing so it's very difficult to assess what problems such a wide scope actually poses!

Respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to security or an insurmountable obstacle to the occupation.

"This should only apply where those laws are compliant with World Assembly obligations. For example, a WA member occupying a non-member should have no responsibility to respect their law restricting abortion.

Provide an administrative and legal system to provide food, water, medical care, public order, and safety for the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

"Education should perhaps be included too.

Respond with proportionate force to open aggression by civilians against the occupying forces, and punish individuals, after a fair and open trial, who actively attempt to destabilize the occupation.

"Given the discussion of 'unlawful combatants' in a prior debate, I'm wondering how this proposal treats partisans, irregulars, paramilitary agents, and other grey areas between 'military' and 'civilian'. I also don't agree that there should be a requirement of an 'open' trial: so long as the trial is fair by WA standards, restrictions on prejudicial reporting are permitted.

"It's early days to be thinking about these things, but I would be inclined to bump this up to 'Significant' strength."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

* I'm still annoyed about that :/ That could have been a good proposal and I only dropped it in good faith because I genuinely thought Three Weasels was going to proceed with their draft instead.

"Thank you, Ms. Chinmusic. Perhaps if that old Dark Star draft in collective punishment were rehashed, I could safely cut out mention of such in my draft? Worth considering, I hope."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm tabling this for now. Some intensive drafting while stuck on the porcelain throne has led me to a few new ideas on topics that extend beyond occupations alone. I'll be coming back to this, but probably not anytime soon."