[DEFEATED] Mercantile Prizes of War

[The Atlae Isles]

"Our territory is sovereign. We do not care what need you or any other nation has for crossing it: if you are our enemies, you will not be allowed passage."

Egad! Does that mean that a cruise ship, a tourist ship, or a private yacht can not cross?

Also, how can you tell if a certain ship has military importance? A country might not know which ships to board, so then it boards every one. But since that would be illegal from the resolution, the resolution wouldn't stop the transport.

"It sounds like these, what did you call them...Germans? Yes, the Germans did not sink this craft in their territory. This would not apply to the resolution at vote, because nations are restricted to this behavior to their own territory."

That is true. However, they fired on a civilian ship that was carrying cargo. Now, let's legalize that and put the Lusitania in German territory instead. Run the tape!

[Separatist Peoples]

"Our territory is sovereign. We do not care what need you or any other nation has for crossing it: if you are our enemies, you will not be allowed passage."

Egad! Does that mean that a cruise ship, a tourist ship, or a private yacht can not cross?

"If we refuse them? Yes. And we happily enforce that with strength of arms."

Also, how can you tell if a certain ship has military importance? A country might not know which ships to board, so then it boards every one. But since that would be illegal from the resolution, the resolution wouldn't stop the transport.

"Any craft that enters our territory without permission is a potential threat. Simple matter of stopping those that cross our borders and ignore the directions to turn around."

That is true. However, they fired on a civilian ship that was carrying cargo. Now, let's legalize that and put the Lusitania in German territory instead. Run the tape!

"If it was in their territory, and the craft ignored directives to turn about, I would fail to see the problem. One's territory is sovereign, and wartime is an excellent time to assert that."

[The Atlae Isles]

"If it was in their territory, and the craft ignored directives to turn about, I would fail to see the problem. One's territory is sovereign, and wartime is an excellent time to assert that."

Good point. But wartime is only an excuse for combatants. Civilians are, by definition non-combatants. Also, the Lusitania would probably still keep going, and be shot down. You'd still be killing innocent civilians, Ambassador, and indiscriminately killing civilians because of their nationality is a war crime.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If it was in their territory, and the craft ignored directives to turn about, I would fail to see the problem. One's territory is sovereign, and wartime is an excellent time to assert that."

Good point. But wartime is only an excuse for combatants. Civilians are, by definition non-combatants. Also, the Lusitania would probably still keep going, and be shot down. You'd still be killing innocent civilians, Ambassador, and indiscriminately killing civilians because of their nationality is a war crime.

"No, it isn't. I wrote Wartime Looting and Pillage, which is perhaps the foundational war crimes law in the Assembly, and all it takes is proof of military necessity to justify that. A craft belonging to a belligerent enemy entering one's territory and either refusing to turn around or refusing to acknowledge a violation constitutes a threat. Since peaceful attempts have been made to stop the craft, and allowing it to continue constitutes an even greater threat, the it becomes military necessity to stop them with sufficient force. Targeting civilians and their property is lawful under circumstances of immediate military necessity. Such an act would not be a war crime."

[Araraukar]

Also, a civilian ship that refuses to turn around when properly warned, may end up having things on board that are not civilian in nature - think ammunition, weapons, spies. And you won't know that without capturing it, boarding it and thoroughly searching through the vessel, cargo and everyone on board, as well as detaining them for a thorough background check.

As for cruise ships and such - their captains would have to be complete idiots to sail into a war zone.

[The Atlae Isles]

Also, a civilian ship that refuses to turn around when properly warned, may end up having things on board that are not civilian in nature - think ammunition, weapons, spies. And you won't know that without capturing it, boarding it and thoroughly searching through the vessel, cargo and everyone on board, as well as detaining them for a thorough background check.

As for cruise ships and such - their captains would have to be complete idiots to sail into a war zone.

Perhaps, but the resolution also lets them have freedom to detain ships, with no restrictions not spelled out by WA rules. It also lets them capture civilian crew as prisoners-of-war, and also lets them seize any cargo, except personal items, regardless of whether it helps the war effort. It doesn't matter if there are ammunition or spies. The ship can still be detained, and its crew prisoners-of-war.

The only reason to target civilian ships is because they might contain useful cargo that indirectly help and fund the war effort. But so do civilian taxpayers; do they get targeted, with their house looted, and the taxpayer detained?

[Separatist Peoples]

Also, a civilian ship that refuses to turn around when properly warned, may end up having things on board that are not civilian in nature - think ammunition, weapons, spies. And you won't know that without capturing it, boarding it and thoroughly searching through the vessel, cargo and everyone on board, as well as detaining them for a thorough background check.

As for cruise ships and such - their captains would have to be complete idiots to sail into a war zone.

Perhaps, but the resolution also lets them have freedom to detain ships, with no restrictions not spelled out by WA rules. It also lets them capture civilian crew as prisoners-of-war, and also lets them seize any cargo, except personal items, regardless of whether it helps the war effort.

"Yes, those are the spoils of war. Why shouldn't a nation keep the contents of a ship that is now theirs? Such is the price of war."

[The Atlae Isles]

Perhaps, but the resolution also lets them have freedom to detain ships, with no restrictions not spelled out by WA rules. It also lets them capture civilian crew as prisoners-of-war, and also lets them seize any cargo, except personal items, regardless of whether it helps the war effort.

"Yes, those are the spoils of war. Why shouldn't a nation keep the contents of a ship that is now theirs? Such is the price of war."

Spoils of WAR. The property that you took was civilian. Non-combatants. As I've said, civilians have different status from the military. They do not fight in wars, so therefore their property is not a spoil of war. They did not fight violently against the ships that boarded them (otherwise it would be fair). Surely civilians have rights!

There might be isolated incidents that the resolution prevents, where civilian ships may hide something useful to the military. But such a raid should not just be unwarranted, without probable cause. Civilians have rights that military personnel do not have - it would be fair to raid a military ship - private citizens and civilians have their rights not to be detained as prisoners-of-war.

[Separatist Peoples]

Spoils of WAR. The property that you took was civilian. Non-combatants. As I've said, civilians have different status from the military. They do not fight in wars, so therefore their property is not a spoil of war. They did not fight violently against the ships that boarded them (otherwise it would be fair). Surely civilians have rights!

"I keep mentioning those rules of war that the WA has written. I know them well, because I wrote them. Don't suggest that I have no idea that civilians have rights, or that I lack the clarity to see the difference. These civilians entered a war zone deliberately. The war did not come to their front doors. This wasn't applicable outside your own territory. They made a choice to enter a conflicted area, and this resolution would have made for an appropriate response to such a folly."

There might be isolated incidents that the resolution prevents, where civilian ships may hide something useful to the military. But such a raid should not just be unwarranted, without probable cause. Civilians have rights that military personnel do not have - it would be fair to raid a military ship - however, private citizens and civilians have their rights not to be detained as prisoners-of-war.

"Just as civilian interns, which, according to the Prisoner of War Accord, is functionally similar. Such as it is, with this failing, the current status quo is that nations can simply destroy enemy civilian shipping. Just blow it up, with little more than a few justifications to shore that up. This was supposed to entice a less-lethal approach to such shipping: take the content, save the lives of the crew. It is failing. So, nations who have enemy shipping within their nautical territory have one incredibly simple solution to the problem: shooting at it. That's the alternative you're offering, because sure as shit, nobody is going to support a law that lets enemy shipping waltz through our territory."

[The Atlae Isles]

"Just as civilian interns, which, according to the Prisoner of War Accord, is functionally similar. Such as it is, with this failing, the current status quo is that nations can simply destroy enemy civilian shipping. Just blow it up, with little more than a few justifications to shore that up. This was supposed to entice a less-lethal approach to such shipping: take the content, save the lives of the crew. It is failing. So, nations who have enemy shipping within their nautical territory have one incredibly simple solution to the problem: shooting at it. That's the alternative you're offering, because sure as shit, nobody is going to support a law that lets enemy shipping waltz through our territory."

I'm afraid that is a straw-man argument. There is a problem with shooting at the ship, but do I think boarding and looting the ship is solution? I do not. Come up with a better resolution and maybe it'll work.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Just as civilian interns, which, according to the Prisoner of War Accord, is functionally similar. Such as it is, with this failing, the current status quo is that nations can simply destroy enemy civilian shipping. Just blow it up, with little more than a few justifications to shore that up. This was supposed to entice a less-lethal approach to such shipping: take the content, save the lives of the crew. It is failing. So, nations who have enemy shipping within their nautical territory have one incredibly simple solution to the problem: shooting at it. That's the alternative you're offering, because sure as shit, nobody is going to support a law that lets enemy shipping waltz through our territory."

I'm afraid that is a straw-man argument. There is a problem with shooting at the ship, but do I think boarding and looting the ship is solution? I do not. Come up with a better resolution and maybe it'll work.

"Considering the last several war crime resolutions were considerably less pro-war and still passed, despite a myriad of WA orcs? I doubt it. I'll tweak this and try again soon."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"You are aware that the resolution is failing, right? Where's the hypocrisy?

"Anyway, we voted for. Yeah, this doesn't really affect us, but then again, hardly any of the war proposals do, so I don't have a dog in this fight."

Ambassador Este Vendecor frowns slightly at this and leans forward in her seat, delicately resting her chin on the back of her hand.

"I seem to have lost you rather immediately, haven't I, honey? You see, when I said that, the votes hadn't yet quite turned into a landslide. Also, I wasn't actually saying anything to address the tallies -- I was sharing observations about the arguments made by the delegates on the floor of this Assembly. Such as a misplaced comma somehow making the wording of another resolution too unwieldy to let stand, but the same people who argued that are now arguing that the notably unwieldy wording of this one is of no concern to them."
She looks genuinely concerned now.
"Are you... are you understanding the distinction now, dear? Between the argumentation and the voting tallies? Because, for example, there's been a lot said in favor of this bill, but the votes are clearly against it. Is this... is it making sense to you now, darling? The distinction between the arguments and the votes? I was addressing the arguments, not the votes."

Neville rolls his eyes.

"Well, that response isn't patronising in the slightest! Also, there are many ambassadors who don't bother to show up during drafting yet are more than happy to point out nonexistent flaws once a resolution enters the voting stage i.e. after any changes can be made. Of course there are a few who bring up valid points, but the vast majority don't even bother to read the debate transcript and start making arguments which have already been refuted. 'Protection of Partially Born' may as well be the textbook example of that. Forgive me, then, if I start to lose my patience whenever a resolution is put to vote."

[Excidium Planetis]

[Should cargo make innocent civilians POWs? They don't fight actively. How do they become hostages of another country?

"They don't become POWs, they are granted the same rights as POWs." Blackbourne explains. "And good thing they apparently won't get those rights, too: POWs have it too good these days, without this resolution we can just stuff the crew of a captured vessel in a lifeboat and set them adrift. No need to feed and house them."

[Normlpeople]

"I am shocked this isn't passing" Clover said "ultimately, it doesn't affect our nation much, as in wartime situations, any commercial commerce would either be escorted out of territorial waters or put at the bottom of them. I voted, symbolically it seems, FOR"

[Araraukar]

There is a problem with shooting at the ship, but do I think boarding and looting the ship is solution?

Suggest a better solution that doesn't involve just letting ships from enemy nations move freely in the national waters of a nation?

[Tahkranul]

Ambassador Este Vendecor frowns slightly at this and leans forward in her seat, delicately resting her chin on the back of her hand.

"I seem to have lost you rather immediately, haven't I, honey? You see, when I said that, the votes hadn't yet quite turned into a landslide. Also, I wasn't actually saying anything to address the tallies -- I was sharing observations about the arguments made by the delegates on the floor of this Assembly. Such as a misplaced comma somehow making the wording of another resolution too unwieldy to let stand, but the same people who argued that are now arguing that the notably unwieldy wording of this one is of no concern to them."
She looks genuinely concerned now.
"Are you... are you understanding the distinction now, dear? Between the argumentation and the voting tallies? Because, for example, there's been a lot said in favor of this bill, but the votes are clearly against it. Is this... is it making sense to you now, darling? The distinction between the arguments and the votes? I was addressing the arguments, not the votes."

Neville rolls his eyes.

"Well, that response isn't patronising in the slightest! Also, there are many ambassadors who don't bother to show up during drafting yet are more than happy to point out nonexistent flaws once a resolution enters the voting stage i.e. after any changes can be made. Of course there are a few who bring up valid points, but the vast majority don't even bother to read the debate transcript and start making arguments which have already been refuted. 'Protection of Partially Born' may as well be the textbook example of that. Forgive me, then, if I start to lose my patience whenever a resolution is put to vote."

"Tit for tat then, darling?"
Este waves it away with a smile.
"Forgiven, forgotten, moved on from! For a moment there, you had me worried something was wrong with the translation device the Assembly provided me with. The only English I've learned without it so far is "hello," "how are you," "bathroom," and "gin Gibson" -- ooh, speaking of which, bar afterwards? Seems like a lot of us will be in need of drinks!"

[Bears Armed]

Perhaps, but the resolution also lets them have freedom to detain ships, with no restrictions not spelled out by WA rules. It also lets them capture civilian crew as prisoners-of-war, and also lets them seize any cargo, except personal items, regardless of whether it helps the war effort. It doesn't matter if there are ammunition or spies. The ship can still be detained, and its crew prisoners-of-war.

"Nations could do that anyhows, without this proposed resolution in place: Hwhat this would do is limit the circumstances under which that behaviour would be legal, and require that the civilians involved be given the same rights as prisoners of war rather than simply massacred..."

"Need I add that Bears Armed Mission has cast its vote for this proposed resolution?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Should not a country who practices privateering be condemned?

"No, they shouldn't, as 'Suppress International Piracy' allows privateering."

OOC: Say, rather, that 'Suppress International Piracy' does not actually forbid privateering, and that further legislation to ban that practice would therefore not be illegal automatically for contradiction of that resolution. (Speaking as its actual author, although I allowed somebody else to handle the submission.)

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Say, rather, that 'Suppress International Piracy' does not actually forbid privateering, and that further legislation to ban that practice would therefore not be illegal automatically for contradiction of that resolution. (Speaking as its actual author, although I allowed somebody else to handle the submission.)

OOC: Shhh! Don't give them any ideas!

[The Chittering Darkness]

The Chittering Darkness will not endorse legislation which allows governments to seize private property, especially without due process or in a way which will provide incentive to incite war.

[Araraukar]

The Chittering Darkness will not endorse legislation which allows governments to seize private property, especially without due process or in a way which will provide incentive to incite war.

This resolution wouldn't matter to you, then, since it only applies during war.