[SUBMITTED] Convention on Local Demilitarisation

[The Ice States]

Global Disarmament, Mild. Character count: 5000.

Believing that global standards for demilitarised zones would assure members that local demilitarisation is respected without resorting to militarism and aggression themselves, saving countless lives across the multiverse;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Demilitarised zones: Any two or more nations (hereinafter "signatories") may designate a "demilitarised zone" (hereinafter "zone") which they agree not to occupy, station military forces in, or otherwise use to conduct military efforts against each other. A "governed zone" is a zone under World Assembly or international jurisdiction to which all signatories are member nations. This resolution is subject to previous resolutions still in force, and no part thereof authorises the World Assembly to unilaterally declare a demilitarised zone on member, non-member or international territory.
   
   
2. Violations: The acts prohibited in the below subsections are war crimes. The presence or activity in a zone of civilian law enforcement or persons with protected status under World Assembly law, does not, ipso facto, violate either of the below provisions.
   
   
   1. No signatory may use a zone to conduct military efforts against another signatory. Such use shall implicitly terminate that zone, unless the signatories renew it or the act does not compel a military response from the targeted signatory.
      
      
   2. No territory may be the subject of a military attack if no military presence exists there or in its immediate surroundings with the capabilities and scope of mission to reasonably attempt a defence against that attack.
   
   
3. Terms: The terms of a governed zone must define, in good faith so as to minimise ambiguity, (a) the extent of military and civilian presence allowed in the zone; (b) the territorial extent of the zone; (c) the extent to which signatories may exert jurisdiction over the zone; and (d) an impartial, peaceful means to resolve disputes between signatories about the zone or its terms. The World Assembly shall not recognise any demilitarised zone whose terms do not impose equal and reciprocal obligations, responsibilities and rights upon each signatory.
   
   
4. Civilian reporting: Where a civilian seeks to access a zone in order to provide factual reporting on its status, and they are not using or intending to use such access to advance or facilitate military efforts, not including any political bias in their reporting, no member may deny them access to that zone. No part of this section prohibits such access from being conditional on military or other supervision of that civilian; however, such supervision must offer them the most freedom of movement within that zone possible without jeopardising their safety, any person’s privacy, or national security. Preventing the revelation of a violation of the terms of a demilitarised zone shall not fall under national security.
   
   
5. Enforcement: Personnel from the International Peacekeeping Force (hereinafter IPF) may be deployed to a governed zone by mutual consent of that zone's signatories. Any signatory to a zone may revoke consent to this deployment following a good faith consultation on such revocation with any other signatories. No part of this provision permits the IPF to operate in a zone without the consent of any signatory thereto.
   
   
   1. The IPF may be authorised by resolution to conduct additional peacekeeping missions, and is funded by voluntary contributions from any willing donor. If such contributions cannot cover the IPF's operation, the General Accounting Office may provide the IPF with a ten-year, interest-free, renewable loan. IPF personnel must wear headgear, such as military-grade helmets, of a standardised light blue colour at all times when on duty.
      
      
   2. IPF ersonnel deployed under this section are tasked to (i) prevent military access to the zone, and ensure the evacuation of military personnel, equipment and supplies from it, where their presence violates its terms; and (ii) conduct routine inspections of the zone to monitor compliance with its terms. The IPF shall promptly publish the findings of each Section 5b.ii inspection it conducts, with appropriate redactions for personal privacy and national security. IPF personnel deployed under this section shall adhere to all resolutions regarding the rules of war, as they apply to member nations, and may not engage in armed hostility towards any member or non-member nation except to the minimal extent necessary for self-defense.
   
   
6. Prosecution: Any act classed by World Assembly law as a war crime, crime against humanity, or crime against peace is recognised as a heinous crime. For the purposes of World Assembly law, genocide is a crime against humanity. Each member must prosecute those responsible for any heinous crime to the maximal extent reasonably possible under national and international law; no member may maintain any law intended to obstruct such prosecution.

Co-author: Russellshire

[Tinhampton]

Unbased. There is no need to put this on a statutory footing for any reason other than to expand the IEC's powers, and there is no reason in this context to expand the IEC's powers when the member nations in question can further their co-operation in the relevant spheres.

[The Ice States]

Unbased. There is no need to put this on a statutory footing for any reason other than to expand the IEC's powers, and there is no reason in this context to expand the IEC's powers when the member nations in question can further their co-operation in the relevant spheres.

Having signatories do it instead of a neutral entity would undermine the rationale stated in "Believing".

[August Imperium]

(OOC)

First the IEC, now GA peacekeepers? How the conspiracy grows...

On a more topical note, in section 1, "occupy" doesn't seem to be a good term for troops stationed in a region. Germany was not occupying the Rhineland in 1936, and the definition is subjective- you might say that Russia is occupying Ukraine, or you might not. (I'm aware that there's no DMZ in Ukraine- just in general it's not a good word to use unless you define it). Furthermore, at present, so long as those soldiers are not "conduct[ing] military efforts against another signatory", they are perfectly fine to move troops into the region, which would allow a nation to prepare for an invasion, rescind the agreement establishing a DMZ, and invade. Needless to say, this would defeat the point of a DMZ. This was why the Rhineland and the Korean DMZ were demilitarised- to prevent soldiers from entering a region where they might then invade.

You could omit "occupy" and insert "station military forces in" instead.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
There's no need for this kind of law; Member-States can declare demilitarized zones without the World Assembly, and they definitely don't need the WA be stepping in for its own military occupation thereof. Also, until this draft includes language along the lines of 'forbids the World Assembly or any subdivision thereof from declaring a demilitarized zone independently of the nations whom it concerns', it's a non-starter.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I’m not certain that this does anything. Where is the operative clause?)

[The Ice States]

(OOC)

First the IEC, now GA peacekeepers? How the conspiracy grows...

On a more topical note, in section 1, "occupy" doesn't seem to be a good term for troops stationed in a region. Germany was not occupying the Rhineland in 1936, and the definition is subjective- you might say that Russia is occupying Ukraine, or you might not. (I'm aware that there's no DMZ in Ukraine- just in general it's not a good word to use unless you define it). Furthermore, at present, so long as those soldiers are not "conduct[ing] military efforts against another signatory", they are perfectly fine to move troops into the region, which would allow a nation to prepare for an invasion, rescind the agreement establishing a DMZ, and invade. Needless to say, this would defeat the point of a DMZ. This was why the Rhineland and the Korean DMZ were demilitarised- to prevent soldiers from entering a region where they might then invade.

You could omit "occupy" and insert "station military forces in" instead.

Also, until this draft includes language along the lines of 'forbids the World Assembly or any subdivision thereof from declaring a demilitarized zone independently of the nations whom it concerns', it's a non-starter.

This should be done; please let me know if it doesn't address the concerns!

(OOC: I’m not certain that this does anything. Where is the operative clause?)

Section 2, inter alia, declares violating a DMZ agreement a war crime.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I’m not certain that this does anything. Where is the operative clause?)

Section 2, inter alia, declares violating a DMZ agreement a war crime.

(OOC: I wouldn’t think that the World Assembly declaring something constitutes an operative clause without a mandate for member-nations to do anything about it.)

[Stella Nera]

This could certainly help in peacekeeping, though since nations can set up demilitarized zones on their own i question the need for the WA to get involved

[The Ice States]

Section 2, inter alia, declares violating a DMZ agreement a war crime.

(OOC: I wouldn’t think that the World Assembly declaring something constitutes an operative clause without a mandate for member-nations to do anything about it.)

Ooc: Obviously prohibiting something is an operative clause; I don't believe there is any functional difference between declaring something illegal and prohibiting it. (NB: "Signatories", the entities performing the relevant acts in Section 2, are member nations.)

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I wouldn’t think that the World Assembly declaring something constitutes an operative clause without a mandate for member-nations to do anything about it.)

Ooc: Obviously prohibiting something is an operative clause; I don't believe there is any functional difference between declaring something illegal and prohibiting it.

(OOC: I disagree that the second clause prohibits anything. The second clause declare that the World Assembly will consider certain conduct to fall under the label of ‘war crime’. It does not prohibit member-nations from performing that conduct nor does it mandate that member-nations consider such conduct as being a ‘war crime’.

This is akin to the difference between these clauses: ‘Declares that wearing hats is a very bad thing’ and ‘Bans wearing hats’ or ‘Mandates that member-nations designate wearing hats as a very bad thing’. The first states an opinion, whereas the second and third require action based on that opinion. Of course, I replaced ‘war crime’ with ‘very bad thing’, but the negative label used is irrelevant to whether member-nations are required to do anything pursuant to that label.)

[The Ice States]

Ooc: Obviously prohibiting something is an operative clause; I don't believe there is any functional difference between declaring something illegal and prohibiting it.

(OOC: I disagree that the second clause prohibits anything. The second clause declare that the World Assembly will consider certain conduct to fall under the label of ‘war crime’. It does not prohibit member-nations from performing that conduct nor does it mandate that member-nations consider such conduct as being a ‘war crime’.

This is akin to the difference between these clauses: ‘Declares that wearing hats is a very bad thing’ and ‘Bans wearing hats’ or ‘Mandates that member-nations designate wearing hats as a very bad thing’. The first states an opinion, whereas the second and third require action based on that opinion. Of course, I replaced ‘war crime’ with ‘very bad thing’, but the negative label used is irrelevant to whether member-nations are required to do anything pursuant to that label.)

Ooc: If something is a crime, it is necessarily illegal. Therefore declaring something a war crime indeed declares it illegal; and accordingly, it prohibits member nations from performing those acts.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I disagree that the second clause prohibits anything. The second clause declare that the World Assembly will consider certain conduct to fall under the label of ‘war crime’. It does not prohibit member-nations from performing that conduct nor does it mandate that member-nations consider such conduct as being a ‘war crime’.

This is akin to the difference between these clauses: ‘Declares that wearing hats is a very bad thing’ and ‘Bans wearing hats’ or ‘Mandates that member-nations designate wearing hats as a very bad thing’. The first states an opinion, whereas the second and third require action based on that opinion. Of course, I replaced ‘war crime’ with ‘very bad thing’, but the negative label used is irrelevant to whether member-nations are required to do anything pursuant to that label.)

Ooc: If something is a crime, it is necessarily illegal. Therefore declaring something a war crime indeed declares it illegal.

(OOC: That holds true within member-nations, but not upon member-nations. It relies on an invisible clause.)

[The Ice States]

Ooc: If something is a crime, it is necessarily illegal. Therefore declaring something a war crime indeed declares it illegal.

(OOC: That holds true within member-nations, but not upon member-nations. It relies on an invisible clause.)

How can it be legal for a member nation to do something explicitly declared a crime by the WA?

[Stella Nera]

I feel like this proposal is is somewhat of an attack on national autonomy, you've already created a WA global police force, we didn't need that and we certainly don't need a WA global military. Assuring the neutrality of such an entity is not possible as its members will have to be made up of member nations whose loyalty to said nation cannot be discredited completely in most cases.

Also the fact you also made a proposal to prohibit war and restrict when war can be conducted makes the demilitarized zones less necessary given that you've basically outlawed all non defensive warfare.

Having both a WA police and military force will put a tremendous strain on the WA budget which means more contribution from member nations, meaning more taxes in respective member states, for a very possibly tyrannical force that has bias towards particular nations.

Apart from suggesting a global military, the act actually seems to be fine on its own and not cause problems but its suggestion of such a creation is what makes me unable to support it.

[Astrobolt]

(OOC: That holds true within member-nations, but not upon member-nations. It relies on an invisible clause.)

How can it be legal for a member nation to do something explicitly declared a crime by the WA?

OOC: Why not also make a prohibition clear?

[The Ice States]

How can it be legal for a member nation to do something explicitly declared a crime by the WA?

OOC: Why not also make a prohibition clear?

Whatever, I have changed "war crime" to "unlawful war crime".

[August Imperium]

I feel like this proposal is is somewhat of an attack on national autonomy, you've already created a WA global police force, we didn't need that and we certainly don't need a WA global military. Assuring the neutrality of such an entity is not possible as its members will have to be made up of member nations whose loyalty to said nation cannot be discredited completely in most cases.

I disagree. This is like calling UN peacekeepers the UN military- they can only be used with the approval of all nations in the DMZ, cannot use offensive force, and only enforce the DMZ.

To use a RL example, would you propose sending in North Korean troops to guard the Korean DMZ? What about South Korean troops? How can member states respect a demilitarised zone if you want their soldiers to be in that zone to enforce it? That defeats the purpose of the DMZ, which is why an IPF is necessary.

[Verdant Haven]

"I fear that this feels simultaneously like an overreach, and rather toothless. Everything it contains is entirely subject to the consent and agreement of the nations in which peacekeeping is being conducted, from the existence of a zone, to the presence of IPF forces, to the roles those forces are permitted to play. That renders any such force utterly pointless, as any nation whose access to the DMZ they are intended to prevent can simply withdraw consent from the peacekeeping mandate on the spot. How is such a group supposed to 'prevent military access to the zone' when the arrival of that military in-and-of-itself represents the end of the IPF mandate? The only role in which such a force could possibly be effective would be if a nation's military has begun operating entirely outside the control of the WA-recognized sovereign government, in which case the peacekeeping force would more accurately be described as WA-provided mercenaries, there to try and keep a civil conflict from spilling across borders."

[Orcuo]

“This feeble attempt to limit our power is futile; we do not support this proposal being enacted.”

[The Ice States]

"I fear that this feels simultaneously like an overreach, and rather toothless. Everything it contains is entirely subject to the consent and agreement of the nations in which peacekeeping is being conducted, from the existence of a zone, to the presence of IPF forces, to the roles those forces are permitted to play. That renders any such force utterly pointless, as any nation whose access to the DMZ they are intended to prevent can simply withdraw consent from the peacekeeping mandate on the spot. How is such a group supposed to 'prevent military access to the zone' when the arrival of that military in-and-of-itself represents the end of the IPF mandate? The only role in which such a force could possibly be effective would be if a nation's military has begun operating entirely outside the control of the WA-recognized sovereign government, in which case the peacekeeping force would more accurately be described as WA-provided mercenaries, there to try and keep a civil conflict from spilling across borders."

"While I understand the concern, I believe that the withdrawal of consent, especially when done 'on the spot' as you have termed it, is itself a disincentive. Such action will inevitably result in significant international scrutiny, which a member nation planning to invade another would naturally seek to avoid. In addition, the mere presence of the said peacekeepers does still indicate the continued consent of both member nations, and would therefore still provide substantial assurance to both parties that no violation is occuring."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Verdant Haven]

"While I understand the concern, I believe that the withdrawal of consent, especially when done 'on the spot' as you have termed it, is itself a disincentive. Such action will inevitably result in significant international scrutiny, which a member nation planning to invade another would naturally seek to avoid. In addition, the mere presence of the said peacekeepers does still indicate the continued consent of both member nations, and would therefore still provide substantial assurance to both parties that no violation is occuring."

"My concern is less about movement back into a DMZ in preparation for a future hostile action, but rather that the movement into the DMZ and the hostile action are one and the same. Supposing a generous 10km wide DMZ, shared evenly between two nations, such that the border is in the center 5km from either side. What is to stop a nation's military from simply beginning hostile action from just on their side of the DMZ, revoking approval as their tanks cross the line at flank speed? What purpose do the peacekeepers serve other than to step aside with no legal authority or protection, as that meager 5km of space is crossed in 3-6 minutes - less time than it takes to even get a message up the front line military chain of command, much less a political one? The shells would be falling before peacekeeping units on the other side of the DMZ even knew their mandate was up. The mission described in Sections 3a and 3b is a Peace Enforcement Mission - something where peacekeepers have the ability to militarily enforce the peace with the backing of the international community, regardless of the wishes of those on whom it is enforced. What is described by the rest of the proposal is an Observation Mission - there to document and report, but with none of the enforcement authority necessary for Sections 3a and 3b. The contents of Section 4 further emphasizes that this group's mandate can never be anything more than passive observation. I have no objections to WA-sponsored observers, and in fact am far more open to that concept than to WA peace enforcement. What I feel like at present is that the group is presented as the latter, but has only the authorities of the former, rendering it ineffective in its stated mission."

[Simone Republic]

"There's no way Simone Republic is sending troops to help the IEC to enforce a DMZ or to be cannon fodder, not that we have any troops anyway." The bear says, munching another salmon. "If two countries can't stop themselves from fighting a war, let them."

[The Ice States]

"While I understand the concern, I believe that the withdrawal of consent, especially when done 'on the spot' as you have termed it, is itself a disincentive. Such action will inevitably result in significant international scrutiny, which a member nation planning to invade another would naturally seek to avoid. In addition, the mere presence of the said peacekeepers does still indicate the continued consent of both member nations, and would therefore still provide substantial assurance to both parties that no violation is occuring."

"My concern is less about movement back into a DMZ in preparation for a future hostile action, but rather that the movement into the DMZ and the hostile action are one and the same. Supposing a generous 10km wide DMZ, shared evenly between two nations, such that the border is in the center 5km from either side. What is to stop a nation's military from simply beginning hostile action from just on their side of the DMZ, revoking approval as their tanks cross the line at flank speed? What purpose do the peacekeepers serve other than to step aside with no legal authority or protection, as that meager 5km of space is crossed in 3-6 minutes - less time than it takes to even get a message up the front line military chain of command, much less a political one? The shells would be falling before peacekeeping units on the other side of the DMZ even knew their mandate was up. The mission described in Sections 3a and 3b is a Peace Enforcement Mission - something where peacekeepers have the ability to militarily enforce the peace with the backing of the international community, regardless of the wishes of those on whom it is enforced. What is described by the rest of the proposal is an Observation Mission - there to document and report, but with none of the enforcement authority necessary for Sections 3a and 3b. The contents of Section 4 further emphasizes that this group's mandate can never be anything more than passive observation. I have no objections to WA-sponsored observers, and in fact am far more open to that concept than to WA peace enforcement. What I feel like at present is that the group is presented as the latter, but has only the authorities of the former, rendering it ineffective in its stated mission."

"Does the addition of Section 3b address your concerns, Ambassador? By requiring a consultation, this would mean that the member nation intending to revoke consent would have to inform the other member nation of those intentions, and then discuss it with said member nation in good faith, which may not be ideal when planning an imminent invasion."

"There's no way Simone Republic is sending troops to help the IEC to enforce a DMZ or to be cannon fodder, not that we have any troops anyway." The bear says, munching another salmon. "If two countries can't stop themselves from fighting a war, let them."

"That your nation has decided this is fair, but has no bearing on the actual proposal. The resolution refers only to 'IPF officers' formed in the spawning pool as any other committee staff. Your nation has no obligation to send your own personnel too; I imagine the gnomes would reject that too given that they have never permitted mortals, like you and I, to serve on committees."

"As a note, we have since changed the wording of 'officers' to 'personnel', but this does not change the substance of my argument."

“This feeble attempt to limit our power is futile; we do not support this proposal being enacted.”

"Your nation should be more concerned about the Convention Aganist Military Aggression we are drafting."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Verdant Haven]

"Does the addition of Section 3b address your concerns, Ambassador? By requiring a consultation, this would mean that the member nation intending to revoke consent would have to inform the other member nation of those intentions, and then discuss it with said member nation in good faith, which may not be ideal when planning an imminent invasion."

The addition of Section 3b does indeed address my concerns regarding the ease of withdrawing consent. Thank you for your consideration in this regard, Your Excellency. I fear that the execution of Sections 3i and 3ii still requires authorities well outside the mandate provided by the balance of the resolution, as they remain enforcement clauses with no enforcement mechanism, but the language does now provide the necessary protections for WA personnel so that at least they will have time to reach safety when a DMZ breaks down."