DRAFT Repeal "Landmine Safety Protocol"

[Malashaan Colony]

Repeal "Landmine Safety Protocol"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#356
Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #356: Landmine Safety Protocol (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that landmines are indiscriminate and persistent tools of war that inherently threaten the long-term safety of civilians in and near conflicted areas as they may remain active long after the conflict has ceased.

BELIEVING, however, that this resolution includes flaws that necessitate repeal of the resolution to close loopholes that may be exploited by member nations not operating in good faith.

NOTING General Assembly Resolution #356 requires inclusion of only one of several listed features, and that use of these features in some combinations and circumstance could cause more harm than good.

HIGHLIGHTING the option to include a feature that would allow for, "A remote or pre-set timed detonation function in lieu of a victim-activated trigger." If implemented in bad faith or negligently, this option could cause severe damage to both the environment and local population.

FURTHER HIGHLIGHTING that member nations may also use landmines with technology that utilizes "a trigger function that reliably lends itself to selectively target hostiles instead of civilians, vehicles instead of personnel, or characteristics inherent to military hardware instead of civilian hardware." The use of the term or means that the capability of making only one such distinction is required for compliance. Consequently, the text does not require the trigger to distinguish between military and civilian vehicles, which still poses a significant risk to civilian populations. A mine that is detonated by any vehicle passing nearby would be compliant.

FURTHER NOTING General Assembly Resolution #356 places an obligation on member nations to remove or render inert all mines outside of their territory after hostilities, but provides no mechanism to guarantee the required access to do so. A well-meaning member nation could be required to invade another nation after hostilities have ceased in order to comply with the text of this resolution, which may renew the conflict.

HOPING the General Assembly will consider additional proposals addressing landmines that are not subject to the flaws of Generally Assembly Resolution #356.

HEREBY repeals "General Assembly Resolution #356: Landmine Safety Protocol."

I believe this is clear from the draft, but just in case, I want to clarify that I very much approve of the intent of the Landmine Safety Protocol. I just believe, for the reasons stated in the draft, that it is flawed and should be re-worked.

[Separatist Peoples]

NOTING General Assembly Resolution #356 requires inclusion of only one of several listed features, and that use of these features in some combinations and circumstance could cause more harm than good.

HIGHLIGHTING the option to include a feature that would allow for, "A remote or pre-set timed detonation function in lieu of a victim-activated trigger." If implemented in bad faith or negligently, this option could cause severe damage to both the environment and local population.

"No more than any remote detonated or timer detonated weapon. The difference is that such weapons are either not indiscriminate, by virtue of having somebody operate the detonator, or not persistant, by virtue of having a pre-set device. To outlaw either of these is to outlaw a huge number of weapons, including grenades, claymores, detcord, laid demolitions, and aerial bombs."

FURTHER HIGHLIGHTING that member nations may also use landmines with technology that utilizes "a trigger function that reliably lends itself to selectively target hostiles instead of civilians, vehicles instead of personnel, [/u]or[/u] characteristics inherent to military hardware instead of civilian hardware." The use of the term or means that the capability of making only one such distinction is required for compliance. Consequently, the text does not require the trigger to distinguish between military and civilian vehicles, which still poses a significant risk to civilian populations. A mine that is detonated by any vehicle passing nearby would be compliant.

"Anti-vehicle mines are much less dangerous to civilians on foot than anti-personnel mines. For some nations, the difference between a civilian and military vehicle is entirely unnoticeable, so such a restriction would eliminate the utility of such a weapon. This is not desirable to anybody.

"Moreover, it is worth noting that such mines can still be addressed in future legislation without violating this Protocol, which was deliberate. Hell, this doesn't actually prevent mines from being banned wholesale."

FURTHER NOTING General Assembly Resolution #356 places an obligation on member nations to remove or render inert all mines outside of their territory after hostilities, but provides no mechanism to guarantee the required access to do so. A well-meaning member nation could be required to invade another nation after hostilities have ceased in order to comply with the text of this resolution, which may renew the conflict.

"That is the farthest possible interpretation from "good faith" I have had the misfortune of hearing, ambassador. If a nation lays such weaponry, they will have to have controlled the territory at one point. Prior to leaving that territory, regardless of how, they have a requirement to remove those weapons. If a nation refuses access to this territory, no good faith interpretation requires an invasion. Any judge with any practical experience would recognize having to abandon such mines in an extreme, extenuating circumstance as the lesser of two evils. And that is assuming the nation that is re-acquiring the territory wouldn't demand the state that laid the mines in the first place spend the money to remove them.

"This also skirts the obvious, which is that this is a disincentive to using an indiscriminate weapon."

ENCOURAGES the General Assembly to consider additional proposals addressing landmines that are not subject to the flaws of Generally Assembly Resolution #356.

"Nice legislating within a repeal. Makes this illegal."

I believe this is clear from the draft, but just in case, I want to clarify that I very much approve of the intent of the Landmine Safety Protocol. I just believe, for the reasons stated in the draft, that it is flawed and should be re-worked.

"They are, frankly, poorly considered reasons. Sorry, but they are."

[Malashaan Colony]

NOTING General Assembly Resolution #356 requires inclusion of only one of several listed features, and that use of these features in some combinations and circumstance could cause more harm than good.

HIGHLIGHTING the option to include a feature that would allow for, "A remote or pre-set timed detonation function in lieu of a victim-activated trigger." If implemented in bad faith or negligently, this option could cause severe damage to both the environment and local population.

"No more than any remote detonated or timer detonated weapon. The difference is that such weapons are either not indiscriminate, by virtue of having somebody operate the detonator, or not persistant, by virtue of having a pre-set device. To outlaw either of these is to outlaw a huge number of weapons, including grenades, claymores, detcord, laid demolitions, and aerial bombs."

Certainly no more harmful than those other options, but it allows for "mines" that are massively destructive. I take your point that this doesn't necessarily preclude a future resolution that requires the inclusion of, say, remote deactivation. However, I think that's something of a close call as to whether a requirement that something includes at least one of X, Y, and Z is consistent with a requirement that the same thing include X. The later more specific rule entirely swallows the earlier rule, rendering it meaningless. I'm far from convinced that is allowed in the WA.

FURTHER HIGHLIGHTING that member nations may also use landmines with technology that utilizes "a trigger function that reliably lends itself to selectively target hostiles instead of civilians, vehicles instead of personnel, [/u]or[/u] characteristics inherent to military hardware instead of civilian hardware." The use of the term or means that the capability of making only one such distinction is required for compliance. Consequently, the text does not require the trigger to distinguish between military and civilian vehicles, which still poses a significant risk to civilian populations. A mine that is detonated by any vehicle passing nearby would be compliant.

"Anti-vehicle mines are much less dangerous to civilians on foot than anti-personnel mines. For some nations, the difference between a civilian and military vehicle is entirely unnoticeable, so such a restriction would eliminate the utility of such a weapon. This is not desirable to anybody.

"Moreover, it is worth noting that such mines can still be addressed in future legislation without violating this Protocol, which was deliberate. Hell, this doesn't actually prevent mines from being banned wholesale."

Again, I'm not convinced. There is an inherent conflict between saying "landmines must include X" and "all landmines are banned." None of the former type can ever be made or possessed without violating the latter, rendering it meaningless. Further, you're viewing this through the lens that this option can be employed in a reasonable manner, but I think that is the wrong lens. The appropriate lens is "how could a bad actor abuse this if they wanted to?" In answer to that, a bad actor could produce mines that blow up in the proximity of any vehicle, despite having the ability to construct mines that distinguish between military and civilian targets.

FURTHER NOTING General Assembly Resolution #356 places an obligation on member nations to remove or render inert all mines outside of their territory after hostilities, but provides no mechanism to guarantee the required access to do so. A well-meaning member nation could be required to invade another nation after hostilities have ceased in order to comply with the text of this resolution, which may renew the conflict.

"That is the farthest possible interpretation from "good faith" I have had the misfortune of hearing, ambassador. If a nation lays such weaponry, they will have to have controlled the territory at one point. Prior to leaving that territory, regardless of how, they have a requirement to remove those weapons. If a nation refuses access to this territory, no good faith interpretation requires an invasion. Any judge with any practical experience would recognize having to abandon such mines in an extreme, extenuating circumstance as the lesser of two evils. And that is assuming the nation that is re-acquiring the territory wouldn't demand the state that laid the mines in the first place spend the money to remove them.

This final point is by far the most serious one in my view, and I feel you are just wrong about what the original resolution requires. The only requirement is that "Member states shall remove or render inert those mines they have deployed outside their territory at the conclusion of hostilities." There is no guarantee, or even a substantial likelihood, that at the time hostilities cease, a state will have access to every mine field that they laid during the hostilities. For example, after losing a long and bitter war, a state could find itself with minefields that it deployed at an earlier time when their position was stronger that are now 100s of miles from the current border. Furthermore, even if the resolution required nations to remove mines on withdrawing from a territory, that it entirely impractical in the neat of battle where a nation's army might be driven out of a region rapidly and without a chance to even collect supplies, let alone ensure that mines are deactivated/removed/whatever.

Finally, to the argument that no good faith interpretation requires an invasion, that is inappropriately relying on a judicial system that the WA does not have to interpret the resolution to mean something it does not say. The resolution requires a nation to "remove or render inert those mines they have deployed outside their territory." There are no exceptions. It doesn't say "where practical" or the like. Come the end of hostilities where a nation has mines deployed deep in enemy territory, it has an absolute obligation to deactivate or remove them.

"This also skirts the obvious, which is that this is a disincentive to using an indiscriminate weapon."

So why not just ban landmines? Or at least put restrictions in place that are much stronger?

ENCOURAGES the General Assembly to consider additional proposals addressing landmines that are not subject to the flaws of Generally Assembly Resolution #356.

"Nice legislating within a repeal. Makes this dreck illegal."

You're right. I was encouraged to add this by a WA veteran *shake fist* I'll remove it.

[Mousebumples]

ENCOURAGES HOPES the General Assembly to will consider additional proposals addressing landmines that are not subject to the flaws of Generally Assembly Resolution #356.

"Nice legislating within a repeal. Makes this illegal."

Now it's no longer legislating within a repeal. Honestly, Ambassador Bell, your comments seem somewhat petty since you know as well as I do (and most GA regulars do) that similar clauses are used often enough in various repeals, especially when the author of the repeal agrees with the aims of the target resolution, but not the execution.

There are multiple ways to interpret and multiple ways to enforce how the gnomes force compliance upon individual member states. Your argument is how you viewed it; the arguments of Malashaan Colony are how his nation's courts and people view things. I'm curious to see how other ambassadors within the Assembly feel about this repeal.

It definitely raises points that I will consider moving forward.

[Separatist Peoples]

Certainly no more harmful than those other options, but it allows for "mines" that are massively destructive.

"Current WA law allows for the use of nuclear weaponry for any military target. There is no limit to the size of the explosives legal to use in wartime, only limits on the results. There is no more massively destructive instance of overkill I can imagine, yet it is allowed. The use of weapons more powerful than their tactical ability is not something that can be effectively regulated. Frankly, I'm astonished that your experienced compadres assisting you didn't enlighten you on that front."

I take your point that this doesn't necessarily preclude a future resolution that requires the inclusion of, say, remote deactivation. However, I think that's something of a close call as to whether a requirement that something includes at least one of X, Y, and Z is consistent with a requirement that the same thing include X. The later more specific rule entirely swallows the earlier rule, rendering it meaningless. I'm far from convinced that is allowed in the WA.

"How is an included list of acceptable features of which one is allowed not acceptable in the World Assembly? Its a fantastically simple list of requirements, all of which serve to make such weaponry either not as significant a risk to civilians, not indiscriminate, or not persistent. Anti-personnel mines are the biggest risk to civilians when it comes to mines, which is why they were specifically targeted."

"Anti-vehicle mines are much less dangerous to civilians on foot than anti-personnel mines. For some nations, the difference between a civilian and military vehicle is entirely unnoticeable, so such a restriction would eliminate the utility of such a weapon. This is not desirable to anybody.

"Right. How many nations routinely have civilian personal vehicles that weigh as much as a military vehicle? Do civilians in your nation regularly drive around with up-armored vehicles? The closest overlap I can see would be large shipping vehicles and lighter military vehicles, but even then, one could argue that interrupting commercial shipping is a valuable military tactic.

Again, I'm not convinced. There is an inherent conflict between saying "landmines must include X" and "all landmines are banned." None of the former type can ever be made or possessed without violating the latter, rendering it meaningless.

"There is no such conflict at all. There is no implied legality of landmines. Members cannot produce, use, etc. any landmines without those features. That creates a one-way legality progression, the reverse of that of On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms, where the WA was allowed to either further legalize abortion, but was not allowed to further ban it. The WA can further restrict landmines, but cannot legalize their use beyond this point."

Further, you're viewing this through the lens that this option can be employed in a reasonable manner, but I think that is the wrong lens. The appropriate lens is "how could a bad actor abuse this if they wanted to?" In answer to that, a bad actor could produce mines that blow up in the proximity of any vehicle, despite having the ability to construct mines that distinguish between military and civilian targets.

"Mines are covered under existing legislation that protects civilians from deliberate targeting. This resolution ensures that. Such an action would be in violation of Wartime Looting and Pillage."

This final point is by far the most serious one in my view, and I feel you are just wrong about what the original resolution requires. The only requirement is that "Member states shall remove or render inert those mines they have deployed outside their territory at the conclusion of hostilities." There is no guarantee, or even a substantial likelihood, that at the time hostilities cease, a state will have access to every mine field that they laid during the hostilities. For example, after losing a long and bitter war, a state could find itself with minefields that it deployed at an earlier time when their position was stronger that are now 100s of miles from the current border. Furthermore, even if the resolution required nations to remove mines on withdrawing from a territory, that it entirely impractical in the neat of battle where a nation's army might be driven out of a region rapidly and without a chance to even collect supplies, let alone ensure that mines are deactivated/removed/whatever.

"This is exactly why I worked on a follow-up resolution, Explosive Remnants of War, which allows humanitarian access to minefields and further allows WA access to demining. This was not meant to operate completely alone. I made that abundantly clear in the drafting thread."

Finally, to the argument that no good faith interpretation requires an invasion, that is inappropriately relying on a judicial system that the WA does not have to interpret the resolution to mean something it does not say. The resolution requires a nation to "remove or render inert those mines they have deployed outside their territory." There are no exceptions. It doesn't say "where practical" or the like. Come the end of hostilities where a nation has mines deployed deep in enemy territory, it has an absolute obligation to deactivate or remove them.

"The World Assembly does not pass laws in the same sense that national legislatures do. They pass directives to create law. Thanks to Universal Jurisdiction, no WA judiciary can form. As such, member states, who are required to have a judiciary in several resolutions, need to try criminals according to their law, which is created by our directives. There is no vehicle for statutory interpretation inherent to the World Assembly, so we operate on the expectation, based on the implied requirement for judicial bodies, that the judges will be able to apply the most basic of legal principals to trying individuals who transgress against WA resolutions. To pretend that the judicial statutory interpretation doesn't exist for WA resolutions at the national level, when there exists no vehicle for it at the international level, is shortsighted and self-deluding."

So why not just ban landmines? Or at least put restrictions in place that are much stronger?

"Because I tried that. It didn't do very well."

You're right. I was encouraged to add this by a WA veteran *shake fist* I'll remove it.

"That solves that, then."

Now it's no longer legislating within a repeal. Honestly, Ambassador Bell, your comments seem somewhat petty since you know as well as I do (and most GA regulars do) that similar clauses are used often enough in various repeals, especially when the author of the repeal agrees with the aims of the target resolution, but not the execution.

"I would be remiss if I didn't defend my work with every tool at my disposal, ambassador. Of that, the Mousebumples delegation has been a sterling example. I thought you'd be proud."

[Imperium Anglorum]

ENCOURAGES the General Assembly to consider additional proposals addressing landmines that are not subject to the flaws of Generally Assembly Resolution #356.

"Nice legislating within a repeal. Makes this illegal."

'No, it doesn't. Look.'