[PASSED] On Humanitarian Aid

[Connopolis]

To my reading, I see no distinction between WA enemy forces and non-WA enemy forces. While the WA cannot pass resolutions that affect non-WA members I think it can (OOC:I'm new so very possibly not) pass resolutions which affect WA members interaction with non-WA members. So, non-WA enemy medics would be protected when a WA member was fighting them until they broke the clause or entire resolution.

NO. They are not part of the WA. They can do whatever the hell they want.

Correct, however, because they're not part of the WA, their medics don't recieve protection; this is a two-sided coin.

[Casta Nal]

Thank you for telling him that.

[Casta Nal]

So do they still wear markers in a war with an Non-WA nation or a nation that has violated this resolution?

[Herttora]

That is my understanding. Basically, it is a good faith bill. Two sides agree to protect medical personnel. The result of breaking this agreement is the loss of your own medical personnel.

"While the Queendom is not a nation that goes to war, almost ever, if we were to find ourselves in such a dreadful state of affairs, I fear the belligerent parties may not have good faith in each other and care to abide by this act at all. I find it more likely that we would simply ignore this whole resolution, as we, if I have understood it correctly, would be able to do, as it would not really matter who first broke it, the consequence would be that it immediately ceased to apply to our conflict. If this is all true, I am concerned this proposal would actually be illegal for optionality."

A very strong point. Nations already fight wars in which they kill medical personnel and have their medical personnel killed. There is not anything forcing or even enticing states to conduct warfare in the manner referred in this proposal. The possibility, and a very weak possibility at the end of the day, that a war would come to conclusion without ever breaking this resolution is realistically not enough to encourage nations to make that happen. It would be great to fix this issue, but I can't imagine how. However, I do also believe that passing it as a sign of faith and belief in the idea; as well as giving nations at least the opportunity to fight in this manner, even if unlikely to happen. I've never been a fan of the argument against moral laws of the style "cannot be effectively enforced."

[Connopolis]

So do they still wear markers?

That's your perogative; if you don't want your medics to wear markers while in conflict against non-WA states, they don't have to, as there are no reprecautions. If you are in conflict with a WA state, however, and decide not to wear markers, your medics' protection is waived.

[Herttora]

To my reading, I see no distinction between WA enemy forces and non-WA enemy forces. While the WA cannot pass resolutions that affect non-WA members I think it can (OOC:I'm new so very possibly not) pass resolutions which affect WA members interaction with non-WA members. So, non-WA enemy medics would be protected when a WA member was fighting them until they broke the clause or entire resolution.

NO. They are not part of the WA. They can do whatever the hell they want.

You entirely misread my point. The WA cannot restrict non WA members, but my point was towards WA members acting upon non WA members. Take the recent biological weapons argument. Glen-Rhodes was angry that the bill specified that WA members cannot attack each other, but said nothing about non WA nations. This serves as at least support to the idea that the way in which WA members act upon non WA members can be restricted.

Therefore, non-WA medics would be given protection because of the restriction on the WA member, but the WA member's medics would not be given such.

[Casta Nal]

Okay I misunderstood sorry. Conner write that in the resolution please.

[Casta Nal]

What if a WA broke the rules, still marked medics?

[Connopolis]

"While the Queendom is not a nation that goes to war, almost ever, if we were to find ourselves in such a dreadful state of affairs, I fear the belligerent parties may not have good faith in each other and care to abide by this act at all. I find it more likely that we would simply ignore this whole resolution, as we, if I have understood it correctly, would be able to do, as it would not really matter who first broke it, the consequence would be that it immediately ceased to apply to our conflict. If this is all true, I am concerned this proposal would actually be illegal for optionality."

A very strong point. Nations already fight wars in which they kill medical personnel and have their medical personnel killed. There is not anything forcing or even enticing states to conduct warfare in the manner referred in this proposal. The possibility, and a very weak possibility at the end of the day, that a war would come to conclusion without ever breaking this resolution is realistically not enough to encourage nations to make that happen. It would be great to fix this issue, but I can't imagine how. However, I do also believe that passing it as a sign of faith and belief in the idea; as well as giving nations at least the opportunity to fight in this manner, even if unlikely to happen. I've never been a fan of the argument against moral laws of the style "cannot be effectively enforced."

Preventing a war from having intentional medic casualties is impossible; this proposal only prevent some, even most, casualties relating to medics. However, in the case of a medic being killed or wounded intentionally, there are ramifications to make up for the casualty.

[Herttora]

NO. They are not part of the WA. They can do whatever the hell they want.

Correct, however, because they're not part of the WA, their medics don't recieve protection; this is a two-sided coin.

If your intention was to state that this only is in effect when both sides are under this resolution that needs to be specifically stated. Otherwise, there is no definitive separation between fighting when only one side is under the resolution or both are.

[Casta Nal]

You need to clarify a lot of things. And I am still opposed.

[Connopolis]

What if a WA broke the rules, still marked medics?

A WA nation doesn't need to mark its medics, as there are consequences for not doing so.

[Dizyntk]

All of you do realize that, at the end of the day, there will be absolutely no way to enforce this resolution even IF it passes. It will just be a case of two or more nations playing "he said, she said."

[Connopolis]

You need to clarify a lot of things. And I am still opposed.

The proposal is still in its early stages, and was initially drafted while I was half-asleep. However, I'll definitely clarify the the proposal, because in its current state, it can be ambiguous.

[Casta Nal]

You are confusing me. You need to clarify the rules for dealing with Non-WA nations, WA nations which broke the rules, and a lot more.

[Halastan]

Opposed Medics are legitmate targets in war.

-Halastans Defense Minister

[Connopolis]

All of you do realize that, at the end of the day, there will be absolutely no way to enforce this resolution even IF it passes. It will just be a case of two or more nations playing "he said, she said."

While I appreciate your criticism, I'm getting sick of reiterating this point. The consequences are immediete, and self evident. There wouldn't need to be a "he said, she said" occurence, as the ramifications would be enacted upon the intentional wounding/killing of the medic.

[Casta Nal]

Still very opposed. I understand your intent, your little Geneva Accord filled wish. But listen it gets complicated war is not clear cut as a bunch of rules say it is.

[Connopolis]

Opposed Medics are legitmate targets in war.

-Halastans Defense Minister

Right; as were medical facilities prior to GAR#121. The intention of this resolution is to prevent, and limit casualties. Not to accomodate for soldiers that kill everything in sight.

[Casta Nal]

That means both nations will most likely lose protection in a war eventually meaning the same old mess.

[Connopolis]

Still very opposed. I understand your intent, your little Geneva Accord filled wish. But listen it gets complicated war is not clear cut as a bunch of rules say it is.

I understand, and respect your opposal, however, this proposal is very ambiguous, unclear, and frankly, poorly written in its current state. I'll be devoting more attention to it later this week.

[Dizyntk]

All of you do realize that, at the end of the day, there will be absolutely no way to enforce this resolution even IF it passes. It will just be a case of two or more nations playing "he said, she said."

While I appreciate your criticism, I'm getting sick of reiterating this point. The consequences are immediete, and self evident. There wouldn't need to be a "he said, she said" occurence, as the ramifications would be enacted upon the intentional wounding/killing of the medic.

And there would be the point of the problem. Nation A: You killed my medic on purpose. Nation B: We did not. Just thinking of trying to prove something like that one way or the other, given the chaos of a battlefield, makes my head hurt.

[Casta Nal]

While I appreciate your criticism, I'm getting sick of reiterating this point. The consequences are immediete, and self evident. There wouldn't need to be a "he said, she said" occurence, as the ramifications would be enacted upon the intentional wounding/killing of the medic.

And there would be the point of the problem. Nation A: You killed my medic on purpose. Nation B: We did not. Just thinking of trying to prove something like that one way or the other, given the chaos of a battlefield, makes my head hurt.

That deserves an important noting.

[Connopolis]

While I appreciate your criticism, I'm getting sick of reiterating this point. The consequences are immediete, and self evident. There wouldn't need to be a "he said, she said" occurence, as the ramifications would be enacted upon the intentional wounding/killing of the medic.

And there would be the point of the problem. Nation A: You killed my medic on purpose. Nation B: We did not. Just thinking of trying to prove something like that one way or the other, given the chaos of a battlefield, makes my head hurt.

In the case of a medic dying due to a soldier, the intent is nearly absolute. There wouldn't be arguing involved, given, as you said, "the chaos of a battlefield". Give me an example of how a soldier would unintentionally kill a medic, other then the listed possibilities in the draft, in which soldiers would argue over during a battle.

[Casta Nal]

Mortar fire hit a medic accidently. Oh he was moving with the enemy I was shooting. So many excuses true and untrue.