[Draft] Defense of Critical Services

[Separatist Peoples]

"Continuing in the vein of not killing innocents...and ignoring the formatting which is misbehaving..."

Defense of Critical Services
ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND ASH-SHAM (Double IS) | Significant + Significant

---

Noting the devastation military conflict causes,

Pleased with the protections already granted to civilians in conflict zones, yet,

Concerned that the indirect effects of war pose a serious risk to innocent populations,

Observing that the difference between continued crumbling of a war-torn area and eventual stability often rests on the restoration of infrastructure critical to civilian survival,

Believing that territories that do not stabilize often fall to violence, disease, turmoil, and insurgency to the detriment of the World Assembly’s aim for peace and economic benefit,

The World Assembly enacts the following:

1. "Critical services" are all infrastructure, systems, or devices whose failure or disruption will endanger civilians, which include, but are not limited to, potable water access, sanitation facilities, crops and livestock, food supplies, public health and emergency response activities, transportation routes, and power generation and transmission;
   
   
2. Member states may not deliberately target or negligently destroy critical services of a belligerent nation during armed conflict when those services:
   
   
   1. are indispensable for civilian health and safety, or
      
      
   2. are exclusively used by civilians,
   except where those services are restored in a timely manner by the attacking nation so as to render their denial a mere inconvenience and not a credible risk to health and safety.
   
   
3. Member states must refrain from targeting or impacting critical services when there is not an insurmountable and immediate military necessity to do so;
   
   
4. No belligerent member states may target infrastructure, with the sole exception of the mobile power facilities of military vessels, that contains dangerous forces or substances, such as dams or nuclear power plants, if such an attack will cause an uncontrolled release of the mechanism of danger;
   
   
5. Member states that accidentally or negligently destroy the aforementioned infrastructure must take immediate steps to reduce further civilian casualties and contain dangerous forces or substances, as per international law.
   
   
6. Member states who's belligerents accidentally or negligently destroy the aforementioned infrastructure may not harry, disrupt, or attack those belligerent forces taking immediate steps to reduce civilian casualties and contain those dangerous forces or substances, per this resolution, except that member states may suspend their obligation under this section if the belligerent's destruction of infrastructure containing dangerous forces or substances perfidiously take military advantage of this protection.
   
   
7. Requires member states to consider actions or conspiracy to act in contravention of the above requirements illegal war crimes, and prosecute offenders accordingly, and, where a guilty verdict is rendered, punish the offender sufficiently to deter future wrongful acts by other potential offenders.

[*] Blames Mallorea and Riva for the Strength and Category.

"I'm truly torn between Health/IA and Human Rights/Mild. It fits HR better, which is where it leans, but the entire topic focuses on the health and well-being of the deprived civilians, and I can see a justification for International Aid. As such, I left them both up."

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you need any help with formatting, I'll always be willing to assist.

[Separatist Peoples]

If you need any help with formatting, I'll always be willing to assist.

OOC: I finally bullied the code into doing what I wanted. I wish everything operated like Microsoft Word. It makes my head hurt less. Ain't got no time fo' learnin' diversified program manipulation, I got shit n' stuff to do.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium finds few flaws with this draft, largely common-sense military policy alongside minor reconstruction mandates. While we would prefer more active mandates against aggressors seeking war reparations, the current form is largely acceptable, save for a single mandate,"

5. Requires member states consider actions or conspiracy to act in contravention of requirements herein be considered an illegal war crime, and prosecuted accordingly.

"We suggest that this, as with another piece of legislation, be altered to not criminalize the formation of any plan to act in such, merely the act of carrying it out, or of ordering a subordinate to do so, simply so as to avoid being forced to arrest Military personnel for simply entertaining the concept."

[Wallenburg]

Critical Services Restoration

"If I were you, Ambassador, I would stay in the market for alternative titles. This one is quite...clunky."

Pleased with the protections thus faralready granted to civilians in conflict zones,yet,

Nevertheless concerned that the indirect effects of war nonetheless create pose a serious risk to populations,

"Some suggested improvements to the current wording."

Defines a critical services as an activity, system, or device whose failure or disruption will endanger civilians,. Such services includinge but are not limited to potable water access, sanitation facilities, crops and livestock, food supplies, public health and emergency response activities, transportation routes, and power generation and transmission;

"Plural-singular continuity is important, Ambassador. The second edit is intended to avoid possible confusion. The clause's current syntax at first led me to believe that it was calling those services civilians."

3. Strictly prohibits belligerent member states from targeting infrastructure that contains dangerous forces, such as dams or radioactive material, if such an attack will release the dangerous forces;

"This clause either calls dams 'dangerous forces', or radioactive material 'infrastructure'. In either case, this clause requires revision."

a. Compels those member states that accidentally or negligently destroy such infrastructure to take immediate steps to reduce civilian casualties and contain the dangerous forces, as per international law.

"Furthermore, one cannot reduce casualties. Once someone has been injured or killed, they become a casualty, and they never fall out of that statistic. I believe the word you are looking for is 'minimize'."

1. Obliges belligerent member states to reestablish or repair critical infrastructure destroyed as a result of accidental or unlawful military action, including and to accounting for subsequent damage caused by the destruction of that infrastructure;

"I also hesitate to support this clause, as this would require member nations to introduce significant numbers of people and amounts of material and equipment into foreign nations, regardless of the consent of that nation. Surely we must account for nations that do not wish for other nations' people to force themselves through their borders. Now, clause three certainly approaches this, but I believe that it would be far more efficient and airtight to combine the two clauses."

2. Strongly encourages those member states to reestablish or repair necessary infrastructure destroyed as a part of lawful military actions;

[list]a. Further encourages member states to consider the effects of conflict and reconstruction on a nation’s economy when seeking remuneration;

"Ambassador, do you have a grudge against the word 'to'?"

5. Requires member states to consider actions or conspiracy to act in contravention of requirements herein be considered an illegal war crimes, and to prosecuted them accordingly.

"This last clause is a mess, Ambassador."

"I wholeheartedly support the purpose of this draft, and am very excited to see it succeed after it is streamlined. My more militaristic colleagues back at home will certainly have a fit over this when it gains traction!"

[Separatist Peoples]

"The Imperium finds few flaws with this draft, largely common-sense military policy alongside minor reconstruction mandates. While we would prefer more active mandates against aggressors seeking war reparations, the current form is largely acceptable,

"I wish I could, but you could imagine the riots that would follow?"
Bell shudders.

save for a single mandate,"

5. Requires member states consider actions or conspiracy to act in contravention of requirements herein be considered an illegal war crime, and prosecuted accordingly.

"We suggest that this, as with another piece of legislation, be altered to not criminalize the formation of any plan to act in such, merely the act of carrying it out, or of ordering a subordinate to do so, simply so as to avoid being forced to arrest Military personnel for simply entertaining the concept."

"WHAT?! YOU SONUVABITCH, HOW DARE YOU FIND A FLAW IN MY just kidding. Criminal liability requires more than just mens rea, especially when military planning requires significant objective consideration of all options. If we held considering a plan to be a manifestly illegal option, I think we'd find war effectively outlawed, since planning for war in peace would be akin to conspiracy to commit murder."

[Araraukar]

Have you considered splitting this into two separate proposals? One for "during war" and the other for "after".

"If we held considering a plan to be a manifestly illegal option, I think we'd find war effectively outlawed, since planning for war in peace would be akin to conspiracy to commit murder."

OOC: That's practically word for word PPU's stance on war in general.

EDIT because spelling, damnit.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If I were you, Ambassador, I would stay in the market for alternative titles. This one is quite...clunky."

"I am. Its a working title. Its particularly difficult to work with, considering the character limit."

"Some suggested improvements to the current wording."

"Noted."

"This clause either calls dams 'dangerous forces', or radioactive material 'infrastructure'. In either case, this clause requires revision."

"Such as has an implication of a "including but not limited to" list. The two are listed as examples, not an exhaustive list. If you have an industrial antimatter generator in a warzone, that could as easily count as a dangerous force contained by infrastructure. I just chose the most common modern equivalents to demonstrate."

"Furthermore, one cannot reduce casualties. Once someone has been injured or killed, they become a casualty, and they never fall out of that statistic. I believe the word you are looking for is 'minimize'."

"The term minimize falls to the same logic: once somebody has been injured or killed, they become a casualty, and cannot be minimized. The intention is to reduce casualties by planning preventative action. Minimize might sound better, but the reasoning isn't very tight."

1. Obliges belligerent member states to reestablish or repair critical infrastructure destroyed as a result of accidental or unlawful military action, including and to accounting for subsequent damage caused by the destruction of that infrastructure;

"I also hesitate to support this clause, as this would require member nations to introduce significant numbers of people and amounts of material and equipment into foreign nations, regardless of the consent of that nation. Surely we must account for nations that do not wish for other nations' people to force themselves through their borders. Now, clause three certainly approaches this, but I believe that it would be far more efficient and airtight to combine the two clauses."

"There is a logical progression of the clauses. The first two of Article II deal with the responsibilities of members to the damage incurred. the second pair deal with logistics. They are two separate considerations, and were separated for organizations sake. Since a member state cannot engage in infrastructure restoration without the explicit permission of the local government, there must be consent. I don't see how Clause 3 as a separate clause leaves any wiggle room.

"Ambassador, do you have a grudge against the word 'to'?"

"Its a habit of military report writing, I'm afraid."

5. Requires member states to consider actions or conspiracy to act in contravention of requirements herein be considered an illegal war crimes, and to prosecuted them accordingly.

"This last clause is a mess, Ambassador."

"I wholeheartedly support the purpose of this draft, and am very excited to see it succeed after it is streamlined. My more militaristic colleagues back at home will certainly have a fit over this when it gains traction!"

"I appreciate the grammatical dissection, ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

Have you considered splitting this into two separate proposals? One for "during war" and the other for "after".

"If we held considering a plan to be a manifestly illegal option, I think we'd find war effectively outlawed, since planning for war in peace would be akin to conspiracy to commit murder."

OOC: That's practically word for word PPU's stance on war in general.

EDIT because spelling, damnit.

"That would leave me with two very short proposals, when they can easily be combined. As much as I like short proposals, the effort of passing one of these means its far more efficient to pair two sides of the same coin together."

[Araraukar]

its far more efficient to pair two sides of the same coin together."

It's just that that approach leaves you with the issue of glueing two different categories together.

[Separatist Peoples]

its far more efficient to pair two sides of the same coin together."

It's just that that approach leaves you with the issue of glueing two different categories together.

OOC: Not all infrastructure is necessarily benefiting Health. Some of it is just for societal cohesion, like communications or energy infrastructure. Not that I'm not open to the idea, but I would need a lot more to work with, and without Article II, Article I is a too close parallel to Wartime Looting and Pillage.

[Umeria]

During armed conflict, the World Assembly:

So, Article 1 is active when the World Assembly is in armed conflict? You might want to change that to "in cases of armed conflict" to clear things up.

[Separatist Peoples]

During armed conflict, the World Assembly:

So, Article 1 is active when the World Assembly is in armed conflict? You might want to change that to "in cases of armed conflict" to clear things up.

"Article 1 deals with actions taken during conflict, thus the qualifier on what the WA requires. Out of conflict, none of these issues are relevant."

[Umeria]

So, Article 1 is active when the World Assembly is in armed conflict? You might want to change that to "in cases of armed conflict" to clear things up.

"Article 1 deals with actions taken during conflict, thus the qualifier on what the WA requires. Out of conflict, none of these issues are relevant."

Yes, but it reads like "the following things are enforced when the WA is in armed conflict". You should change it so it reads like "the following things are enforced when the nation is in armed conflict".

[Separatist Peoples]

"Article 1 deals with actions taken during conflict, thus the qualifier on what the WA requires. Out of conflict, none of these issues are relevant."

Yes, but it reads like "the following things are enforced when the WA is in armed conflict". You should change it so it reads like "the following things are enforced when the nation is in armed conflict".

"But the WA cannot be in conflict. The WA has way to participate in military engagements. That meaning is impossible, and unlikely to be confused with the grammatically correct usage."

[Umeria]

Yes, but it reads like "the following things are enforced when the WA is in armed conflict". You should change it so it reads like "the following things are enforced when the nation is in armed conflict".

"But the WA cannot be in conflict. The WA has way to participate in military engagements. That meaning is impossible, and unlikely to be confused with the grammatically correct usage."

It's still vague. What if it's interpreted to mean "during any armed conflict that ever happens anywhere"?

[Separatist Peoples]

"But the WA cannot be in conflict. The WA has way to participate in military engagements. That meaning is impossible, and unlikely to be confused with the grammatically correct usage."

It's still vague. What if it's interpreted to mean "during any armed conflict that ever happens anywhere"?

"The WA, by virtue of it's mechanics, cannot affect nonmember states. Even if it could, the draft refers to member states specifically, and belligerent member states in all clauses where this miscommunication could arise."

[Wallenburg]

"This clause either calls dams 'dangerous forces', or radioactive material 'infrastructure'. In either case, this clause requires revision."

"Such as has an implication of a "including but not limited to" list. The two are listed as examples, not an exhaustive list. If you have an industrial antimatter generator in a warzone, that could as easily count as a dangerous force contained by infrastructure. I just chose the most common modern equivalents to demonstrate."

"I'm afraid you do not understand what I am getting at, Ambassador. I understand that those are examples. However, one is an example of infrastructure, and another is one of 'dangerous forces'. However, as currently constructed, they can only be examples of either infrastructure or 'dangerous forces', not both."

"Furthermore, one cannot reduce casualties. Once someone has been injured or killed, they become a casualty, and they never fall out of that statistic. I believe the word you are looking for is 'minimize'."

"The term minimize falls to the same logic: once somebody has been injured or killed, they become a casualty, and cannot be minimized. The intention is to reduce casualties by planning preventative action. Minimize might sound better, but the reasoning isn't very tight."

"I see. Perhaps a clause along the lines of 'Compels those member states that accidentally or negligently destroy such infrastructure to contain dangerous forces and take immediate steps to avoid further civilian casualties, as per international law' would function more smoothly."

"I also hesitate to support this clause, as this would require member nations to introduce significant numbers of people and amounts of material and equipment into foreign nations, regardless of the consent of that nation. Surely we must account for nations that do not wish for other nations' people to force themselves through their borders. Now, clause three certainly approaches this, but I believe that it would be far more efficient and airtight to combine the two clauses."

"There is a logical progression of the clauses. The first two of Article II deal with the responsibilities of members to the damage incurred. the second pair deal with logistics. They are two separate considerations, and were separated for organizations sake. Since a member state cannot engage in infrastructure restoration without the explicit permission of the local government, there must be consent. I don't see how Clause 3 as a separate clause leaves any wiggle room.

"Very well then. I shall share this draft with my staff, and get back to you as to the Wallenburgian delegation's official response."

"I appreciate the grammatical dissection, ambassador."

"Any time, Ambassador Bell."

[Sciongrad]

"But the WA cannot be in conflict. The WA has way to participate in military engagements. That meaning is impossible, and unlikely to be confused with the grammatically correct usage."

It's still vague. What if it's interpreted to mean "during any armed conflict that ever happens anywhere"?

"I agree with this comment. While we all understand the World Assembly cannot possibly be in armed conflict, the wording is certainly unclear. A classic case of a dangling modifier, in my opinion.

Other than that, Sciongrad is largely supportive of this draft and doesn't have any immediate objections. As always, Sciongrad commends ambassador Bell for his excellent work. We will continue to monitor the draft in case we missed something, but Sciongrad is prepared to vote for this proposal."

[Umeria]

It's still vague. What if it's interpreted to mean "during any armed conflict that ever happens anywhere"?

"The WA, by virtue of it's mechanics, cannot affect nonmember states. Even if it could, the draft refers to member states specifically, and belligerent member states in all clauses where this miscommunication could arise."

Okay. Say member nations A and B go to war with each other. Is member nation C, which is on another planet that has never heard of member nation A or B, subject to the active clauses of this resolution even though it has nothing to do with any armed conflict of any kind?

There's also the issue of what happens when a non-member nation declares war on a member nation. What if the non-member nation is engaging in starvation warfare and the only way for the member nation to get the armies to stop surrounding their cities is to cut off the enemy's resources, thus starving them and forcing them to leave? Forbidding drastic measures taken in warfare, in these cases, will likely cause more deaths(the civilians starving in the city) than there would have been if the member nation were allowed to defend themselves by any means necessary(some of the enemy soldiers starving before the enemy realizes they cannot win a war of attrition and leaves). This proposal, in its current wording, would leave many member nations defenseless when it comes to non-member nations using guerrilla warfare.

And what about espionage? Does a spy sabotaging a nuclear research lab count as "armed conflict"? Maybe you should include some definitions somewhere, because right now the intended messages of these clauses are rather unclear.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The WA, by virtue of it's mechanics, cannot affect nonmember states. Even if it could, the draft refers to member states specifically, and belligerent member states in all clauses where this miscommunication could arise."

Okay. Say member nations A and B go to war with each other. Is member nation C, which is on another planet that has never heard of member nation A or B, subject to the active clauses of this resolution even though it has nothing to do with any armed conflict of any kind?

"If Member C is not engaging in an activity that pertains to the active clauses, Member C needn't worry about fulfilling any obligations. That is how law works, ambassador."

There's also the issue of what happens when a non-member nation declares war on a member nation. What if the non-member nation is engaging in starvation warfare and the only way for the member nation to get the armies to stop surrounding their cities is to cut off the enemy's resources, thus starving them and forcing them to leave?
Forbidding drastic measures taken in warfare, in these cases, will likely cause more deaths(the civilians starving in the city) than there would have been if the member nation were allowed to defend themselves by any means necessary(some of the enemy soldiers starving before the enemy realizes they cannot win a war of attrition and leaves). This proposal, in its current wording, would leave many member nations defenseless when it comes to non-member nations using guerrilla warfare.

"A military force that has spent the last three weeks without food to merit starving soldiers has long since run out of ammunition, ambassador, which is expended at a significantly faster rate than food. A commander that needs soldiers slowly starving to death to convince them their position is untenable is not likely to be convinced with any other tactic any sooner. Your entire scenario is far fetched and hopelessly absurd, and hinges on the assumption that there is some sort of idiot-led force foolish enough to ignore every logistical, supply officer, and operational report that crosses their desk, and that you are still losing.

"Plenty of tactics and strategies exist to combat guerilla warfare, even when the enemy fails to adhere to the rules of war, without resorting to attrition warfare. I have long held the suggestion that nations should be allowed to take extreme steps in warfare for the good of the mission to be a suggestion entirely devoid of merit. The World Assembly's members have a higher duty to adhere to principals of justice and reason. Civilians in a war-torn area are victims, not acceptable losses. There is nothing just or reasonable about a scorched earth approach. If your nation is incapable of engaging in war without resorting to such barbaric practices, the World Assembly is not the place for you."

And what about espionage? Does a spy sabotaging a nuclear research lab count as "armed conflict"? Maybe you should include some definitions somewhere, because right now the intended messages of these clauses are rather unclear.

"Espionage involves gathering intelligence. It does not involve blowing anything up. You've been watching far too much James Bond and been neglecting your military education, ambassador. If your agents are there to gather information, blowing up targets will do much more to hinder that agent than aid them. If your agents are blowing targets up, they are not spies but saboteurs or agents provocateur, and would be considered belligerent combatants. As such, they would fall under a number of other laws that dictate the behavior of combatants in conflict. I would know. I was the one who wrote those laws. If you have a reasonable scenario, I'll be happy to debate it."

"I agree with this comment. While we all understand the World Assembly cannot possibly be in armed conflict, the wording is certainly unclear. A classic case of a dangling modifier, in my opinion."

"Now, this is a perfectly reasonable argument for changing the wording. A dangling modifier...what have I come to?"

-snip-

"All of the Wallenburgian considerations have been addressed."

[Wallenburg]

-snip-

"All of the Wallenburgian considerations have been addressed."

"Ambassador, I hate to be confrontational, but that is not true. In any case, this still contains several errors."

Defines a critical services as an activity, system, or device whose failure or disruption will endanger civilians, which include, but are not limited to, potable water access, sanitation facilities, crops and livestock, food supplies, public health and emergency response activities, transportation routes, and power generation and transmission;

"'A critical services', Ambassador? This, along with several instances where the word 'to' really ought to be introduced, severely impedes the readability and professional atmosphere of the draft."

[Umeria]

"If Member C is not engaging in an activity that pertains to the active clauses, Member C needn't worry about fulfilling any obligations. That is how law works, ambassador."

Then why do you even have a qualifier for articles 1 and 2? There's always going to be a war going on in some member nation or another, so it's pointless to add that part instead of just making the clauses perpetually in effect- oh, you deleted that bit already? Good. Never mind then.

"A military force that has spent the last three weeks without food to merit starving soldiers has long since run out of ammunition, ambassador, which is expended at a significantly faster rate than food.

Unless it's a future tech military force equipped with some sort of laser gun. Or a low-tech force with swords and spears. Not every war is fought with industrial or modern equipment, ambassador.

A commander that needs soldiers slowly starving to death to convince them their position is untenable is not likely to be convinced with any other tactic any sooner.

They weren't starving to death; they had a food supply from a network of captured farms, and the defending troops decided to burn all those farms so the attacking troops would have to retreat or starve. Currently, your proposal would make burning those farms illegal, condemning the besieged city to a slow, painful death.

Your entire scenario is far fetched and hopelessly absurd,

No it isn't. A besieged city with limited forces and a bunch of surrounding flammable farms is rather realistic situation.

and hinges on the assumption that there is some sort of idiot-led force foolish enough to ignore every logistical, supply officer, and operational report that crosses their desk,

Sometimes, people are desperate. And please detail why burning farms to cut off resources from the troops besieging your city is such a bad idea.

and that you are still losing.

Not necessarily. You could still have a bunch of other strongholds and just not be able to send resources to this city.

"Plenty of tactics and strategies exist to combat guerilla warfare, even when the enemy fails to adhere to the rules of war, without resorting to attrition warfare.

Please provide an example.

I have long held the suggestion that nations should be allowed to take extreme steps in warfare for the good of the mission to be a suggestion entirely devoid of merit. The World Assembly's members have a higher duty to adhere to principals of justice and reason. Civilians in a war-torn area are victims, not acceptable losses. There is nothing just or reasonable about a scorched earth approach. If your nation is incapable of engaging in war without resorting to such barbaric practices, the World Assembly is not the place for you."

Which is worth more to you: a farm, or a city containing millions of innocent civilians?

"Espionage involves gathering intelligence. It does not involve blowing anything up.

I never said anything about explosions. I was asking if gathering information about enemy weapons counts as "armed conflict".

You've been watching far too much James Bond

Who's James Bond? Is that a television show or something? I've never heard of it.

and been neglecting your military education, ambassador.

How dare you suggest that Umerian ambassadors do not undergo proper training! I may be young, but I have just as much qualification to be here as you do!

If your agents are there to gather information, blowing up targets will do much more to hinder that agent than aid them. If your agents are blowing targets up, they are not spies but saboteurs or agents provocateur, and would be considered belligerent combatants. As such, they would fall under a number of other laws that dictate the behavior of combatants in conflict. I would know. I was the one who wrote those laws.

Okay, so "espionage" was the wrong word in that case. Besides, this is moot because you removed the "armed conflict" qualifier.

If you have a reasonable scenario, I'll be happy to debate it."

Okay. Let's debate the besieged city scenario I mentioned earlier.

[Separatist Peoples]

"A military force that has spent the last three weeks without food to merit starving soldiers has long since run out of ammunition, ambassador, which is expended at a significantly faster rate than food.

Unless it's a future tech military force equipped with some sort of laser gun. Or a low-tech force with swords and spears. Not every war is fought with industrial or modern equipment, ambassador.

"Energy packs. Arrows."
OOC: We write to MT because MT is the most common tech period.

They weren't starving to death; they had a food supply from a network of captured farms, and the defending troops decided to burn all those farms so the attacking troops would have to retreat or starve. Currently, your proposal would make burning those farms illegal, condemning the besieged city to a slow, painful death.

"A practice that would sustain an army considerably less than indefinitely. In your painfully primitive example, most cities have a food storage surplus for exactly this reason. As a result, the farms might not be critical to survival. Otherwise, yes. It would be illegal. Because the civilians do not deserve to starve to death for the survival of the troops. If the state is unable to provide an alternative to the infrastructure, which would take it out of the definition of infrastructure critical to civilian survival, it should not be destroyed."

No it isn't. A besieged city with limited forces and a bunch of surrounding flammable farms is rather realistic situation.

"And I addressed that. Civilians are not an expendable resource, and the text deals with that situation. As I noted above."

Sometimes, people are desperate. And please detail why burning farms to cut off resources from the troops besieging your city is such a bad idea.

"That isn't desperate, that's full on braindead. Burned farms don't produce food after the conflict. Die now or die later. Beautiful situation, let me tell you."

Not necessarily. You could still have a bunch of other strongholds and just not be able to send resources to this city.

"I see we're still dealing with a kind of warfare that is long outdated. Most WA laws aren't in place for the primary benefit of medieval states, ambassador. Unless the Civilian Aircraft Protocol applies to flying arrows."

Please provide an example.

"The conventional strategy involves psy-ops to turn the civilian population, utilization of local intelligence, regular patrols backed by precision strikes or close support to break up and destroy individual combat cells, and a long term strategy of disincentivizing conflict through superiority. At least, that was the C.D.S.P. approach. Guerilla warfare is not some invincible strategy, it requires an incredible attrition rate on behalf of the fighters that is often broken through the use of indirect conflict: artillery, air support, cache destruction, and loss of domestic support."

Which is worth more to you: a farm, or a city containing millions of innocent civilians?

"What is important to me, ambassador, is ensuring civilians are not deprived the infrastructure that keeps them alive."

I never said anything about explosions. I was asking if gathering information about enemy weapons counts as "armed conflict".

"Well, ambassador, does espionage involve combat? You know better than that."

How dare you suggest that Umerian ambassadors do not undergo proper training! I may be young, but I have just as much qualification to be here as you do!

"I'm not suggesting it, I'm directly questioning the quality of your military education."
\

Okay, so "espionage" was the wrong word in that case. Besides, this is moot because you removed the "armed conflict" qualifier.

"No, I didn't. I moved it."

[The Imperial Frost Federation]

Ambassador Bell, can nations still conduct reconstruction efforts in occupied territory if the surviving enemy government disapproves or does the opposing government lack jurisdiction in the occupied territories? If its the latter this will free up a considerable amount of bureaucratic red tape to restore critical services to pre-conflict levels.