[PASSED] Rights of Neutral States

[Sciongrad]

Sigh. I think most people took one look at the words "global disarmament" and "rights" and screwed this proposal.

Or we just don't see the point, after having read it carefully.

So sell it to me: why is it in Svornost's best interest to vote for this proposal?

Because it is an inherent right of nations - the very core of a nation's national sovereignty - to have the ability to refrain from conflict. A nation should not have to go to war (or withstand a violation of its sovereignty by another nation) if it's not in its interest. So one day, if Svornost is in a region where conflict threatens all nations in the vicinity, it won't have to participate if it's not in it's interest. This proposal carries with it no negative consequences, assuming one believes in civil behavior by all nations.

[Svornost]

I can refrain from conflict as it is. What changes under this resolution?

[Sciongrad]

I can refrain from conflict as it is. What changes under this resolution?

The protections endowed upon nations that declare neutrality are specific, as are their duties, under this resolution. As it is, you cannot refrain from conflicts - you can refrain from joining them, but you can't prevent invasion by belligerents. This resolution ensures that neutral nations cannot be forced to join a conflict by being invaded and such.

[Svornost]

So you're trying to prevent nonconsenual war.

You realize that virtually all wars are nonconsensual, right?

And you realize that banning war doesn't WORK, right?

[Sciongrad]

So you're trying to prevent nonconsenual war.

You realize that virtually all wars are nonconsensual, right?

And you realize that banning war doesn't WORK, right?

This statement is inherently false. This resolution is meant to protect the rights of nations that do not want to get involved in conflicts that may not concern them. Almost no wars are non-consensual, that is a misconception - most wars involve both parties issuing a declaration of war at some point, thus making both parties consent. It is the right of a nation to avoid conflict - no nation is entitled to exert its authority over another. If you think it's a violation of national sovereignty for the World Assembly to pass measures such as this one, then it's an even graver abuse for an individual nation to violate one's sovereignty.

Furthermore, compliance is mandatory. Meaning member nations have no choice but to comply, regardless of whether or not they like the idea of having their ability to cause conflict abridged.

[Carcarcia]

I must lodge my complaint against provision 6 of the Rights of Neutral States resolution. I disagree with the very concept of forcing non-member states to comply with World Assembly resolutions. A member state should have the right to make alliances with whomever they please, not a shadow of this right, forced by compliance with World Assembly resolutions.
I also must ask, does provision 6 have Grandfathering status? Would my country's currently standing alliances be dissolved until such a time as the non-member alliances comply with this resolution?
Carcarcia, while supporting the concept of this resolution, must respectfully vote against, given their qualms about provision 6.

[Svornost]

Almost no wars are non-consensual, that is a misconception - most wars involve both parties issuing a declaration of war at some point, thus making both parties consent.

This is patently false.

War exists because an aggressor nation wishes to impose its will upon another nation. The second nation may WELL declare war, but that is not CONSENT to the war, it's RECOGNITION that a war is taking place against their will.

[Sciongrad]

I must lodge my complaint against provision 6 of the Rights of Neutral States resolution. I disagree with the very concept of forcing non-member states to comply with World Assembly resolutions. A member state should have the right to make alliances with whomever they please, not a shadow of this right, forced by compliance with World Assembly resolutions.
I also must ask, does provision 6 have Grandfathering status? Would my country's currently standing alliances be dissolved until such a time as the non-member alliances comply with this resolution?
Carcarcia, while supporting the concept of this resolution, must respectfully vote against, given their qualms about provision 6.

Clause 6 is necessary to the effectiveness of this resolution. If a member nation could have its non-member allies circumvent the provisions of this resolution, then this entire resolution is worthless. While I understand your concerns, it is a vital component of this resolution. I do hope you reconsider, ambassador.

[Sciongrad]

Almost no wars are non-consensual, that is a misconception - most wars involve both parties issuing a declaration of war at some point, thus making both parties consent.

This is patently false.

War exists because an aggressor nation wishes to impose its will upon another nation. The second nation may WELL declare war, but that is not CONSENT to the war, it's RECOGNITION that a war is taking place against their will.

Ambassador, I hope you realize that blind imperialism is not the sole cause of war... More than often, it is a mutual disagreement that leads to conflicts. And even if it all war was non-consensual, just because it happens does not mean it's justified. Member nations have a right to refrain from conflict, and no nation is entitled to exert its will over another. Your argument seems to be that non-consensual war is natural, and therefore it must continue to occur; this is not only false, but all instances of non-consensual war that do occur should be prevented from occurring at all.

[Svornost]

More than often, it is a mutual disagreement that leads to conflicts.

"Sir, would you like to have a war about this?"

"Yes, sir, I would like to have a war about this!"

Said no ambassadors, ever. War by its nature is non-consensual.

And honestly, if something is important enough for me to shed the blood of my citizens over, clicking the "Leave WA" button is the least of my worries.

I stand by my assertion that this resolution will have NO practical effect, and my vote remains against.

[Sciongrad]

More than often, it is a mutual disagreement that leads to conflicts.

"Sir, would you like to have a war about this?"

"Yes, sir, I would like to have a war about this!"

Said no ambassadors, ever. War by its nature is non-consensual.

And honestly, if something is important enough for me to shed the blood of my citizens over, clicking the "Leave WA" button is the least of my worries.

I stand by my assertion that this resolution will have NO practical effect, and my vote remains against.

This is grossly inaccurate and does not resemble an actual scenario - it does not at all capture what I described. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove here, but I don't think I understand your point. Seeing as I cannot convince you, however, I'm afraid we're going to have to [i]consensually[i/] agree to disagree.

[Carcarcia]

Clause 6 is necessary to the effectiveness of this resolution. If a member nation could have its non-member allies circumvent the provisions of this resolution, then this entire resolution is worthless. While I understand your concerns, it is a vital component of this resolution. I do hope you reconsider, ambassador.

The resolution would not be useless, unless you consider any and all resolutions to be useless, via a member state resigning their status. Non-member states should not be forced to abide WA resolutions in order to ally with member states. The member state would still have to abide by all provisions in this resolution even if their allies do not. This simply means, while a member could have their non-member allies circumvent this resolution, the resolution itself already has protection for member states against that. Section 3b. states, "except that it may use reasonable force to repel belligerent forces that are violating its neutrality" regardless of whether the belligerent is a member state or not.
Furthermore, if a member state has declared neutrality, they may not allow even their allies to cross their borders if said ally could be considered a belligerent in a relevant war.
From my perspective this resolution has all the necessary components to be effective without clause 6, which I consider a violation of the sovereignty of non-member states.

[Preconstitutional Utopia]

Esteemed colleagues, dear fellow ambassadors,

The Federal Republic of Preconstitutional Utopia sees this resolution as an important step into the right direction, as it gives WA nations a special form of safety by declaring "general neutrality" (I belive in the real world, several states have declared such forms of neutrality, including Sitzerland, Sweden, Malta and Costa Rica). As we understand it, neutral states under this resolution would be able to ask the WA security council for help, should they be attacked by belligerent states.

However, we see two flaws in the resolution. Firstly, it's lacking a definition of "relevant conflicts", thus bringing neutral states in danger of suffering "police actions" (as the Korean War was called by the UN) by belligerent states.

Secondly, clause 5b, concerning the passage of warships seems a bit difuse. I see that the author tried to burrow a leaf from the Hague Conventions on maritime warfare, but when is a warship in serious danger of wreckage, what is a resonable period of time? Further, what about medical emergencies on board of said warship? Would neutral sates be allowed to deny the ship access in such a situation?

Due to the aforementioned flaws in the draft, we have to vote AGAINSt this resolution, unless the author manges to put our concerns at ease.

[Sciongrad]

However, we see two flaws in the resolution. Firstly, it's lacking a definition of "relevant conflicts", thus bringing neutral states in danger of suffering "police actions" (as the Korean War was called by the UN) by belligerent states.

While I understand you concern, your Excellency - I myself can be quite pedantic when it comes to definitions - I feel as if relevant conflict is self-explanatory enough to warrant the lack of a definition. A relevant conflict would be, as its name implies, any type of conflict that could involve a member nations.

Secondly, clause 5b, concerning the passage of warships seems a bit difuse. I see that the author tried to burrow a leaf from the Hague Conventions on maritime warfare, but when is a warship in serious danger of wreckage, what is a reasonable period of time? Further, what about medical emergencies on board of said warship? Would neutral sates be allowed to deny the ship access in such a situation?

There would simply be no way to define under what exact circumstances "reasonable period of time" would entail, given the space constraints. Reasonable would imply an amount of time necessary to complete the repairs adequately and in a timely manner - further elaboration would be unnecessary, especially when you consider how tight we were for space as it was.

Due to the aforementioned flaws in the draft, we have to vote AGAINSt this resolution, unless the author manges to put our concerns at ease.

Your Excellency, I sincerely hope we've adequately assuaged your concerns - if you have further issue, feel free to ask for further clarification.

[Fritzergald]

this is dumb. AGAINST

[United Federation of Canada]

:palm: this is dumb. AGAINST

Why? That is your whole argument?

[Sciongrad]

:palm: this is dumb. AGAINST

Would your Excellency care to elaborate so that my delegation may possibly address your concern?

[The Saint James Confederation]

Honourable Delegate of Sciongrad,
While the Confederation appreciates the sentiments of this resolution, enough (five) of our states have concerns with this proposal to the effect that no conclusive result can be reached in our Congress. Four of our states have brought the points up in our Congress that the honourable Delegate of Preconstitutional Utopia brought to your attention. Securu, Iles Rouges and Jalisca fear that this resolution will do nothing about "police actions", thus allowing belligerous powers to skirt the resolution. The Free State fears both the imposition of WA law on non-member states and the ineffectiveness of the resolution if it is not imposed upon them, making the entire resolution problematic to begin with. The current wording as put to a vote in the GA does nothing to alleviate our personal concerns.

However, our Congress as a whole has expressed great support for the aims of this resolution. In our policy of strict neutrality, we appreciate the efforts of the WA to protect us and nations like us from belligerous powers that would have us drawn into a conflict without need.

Result of our voting: 9 Yeas to 5 Noes with zero abstentions, failing to attain a two-thirds majority in either direction. With this in mind, The Saint James Confederation must hereby ABSTAIN. However, if the honourable Delegate would be pleased to re-introduce the resolution with changes necessary to prevent its abuse, we may be able to vote in favour.

:palm: this is dumb. AGAINST

We also ask that the Delegate of Fritzergald please explain his opposition. The explanation he offers is simply absurd, as the World Assembly has voted on far more irrelevant issues. The Confederation as a whole finds this to be worthy of the attention of the WA and the international community, as war (other than arguably civil wars) is by definition an international issue.

---

Sincerely,
Sadatsugu Takari
Chairman of the Congress

[SkyDip]

Believing, with good faith, the intentions of a nation I would consider a good friend in the author, I have, in my power as WA Delegate of Europeia and with the favor of the people, cast my vote IN FAVOR of this proposal. Best of luck, Sciongrad.

[Sverige-Norge-Danmark]

What about aircraft? If a warplane of a belligerent is damaged and forced to land/crash land in a neutral state (Rather then in enemy territory), would the would the aircraft and/or aircrew be interned until the end of hostilities, or be allowed to return to the belligerent state it/they belong to?

[Velika Zeta]

After reading, re reading and then re re reading the proposal, Nikola Amatic, WA Ambassador of Velika Zeta decides to pitch in his thoughts:


"As a nation we are thoroughly against this! We believe that "neutrality" is a perception that can not truly exist. A state may declare it self neutral in a conflict but who knows what that states intelligence is doing on what front. I would further like to add that many "neutral" states stay neutral in conflict to benefit themselves at the expense of warring countries to the extent that when one side is on it's knees the so called "neutral" state may jump on the winning sides bandwagon. Finally the main reason we wish to vote against this is similar to our first point, no state is truly neutral in conflict, there is always something to gain. Arming one side with weapons would be breaching neutrality by our standards, but not the WA's. As would a trade Embargo. We just do not believe any state can truly be utterly 100% neutral in a war near them."

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

The intent behind this proposal is good enough, but this is lost in poor wording and loopholes.

The People's Republic is opposed.

[Sciongrad]

What about aircraft? If a warplane of a belligerent is damaged and forced to land/crash land in a neutral state (Rather then in enemy territory), would the would the aircraft and/or aircrew be interned until the end of hostilities, or be allowed to return to the belligerent state it/they belong to?

Your Excellency, I refer you to clause 5a:

Accidental strays who intend on leaving immediately;

After reading, re reading and then re re reading the proposal, Nikola Amatic, WA Ambassador of Velika Zeta decides to pitch in his thoughts:


"As a nation we are thoroughly against this! We believe that "neutrality" is a perception that can not truly exist. A state may declare it self neutral in a conflict but who knows what that states intelligence is doing on what front. I would further like to add that many "neutral" states stay neutral in conflict to benefit themselves at the expense of warring countries to the extent that when one side is on it's knees the so called "neutral" state may jump on the winning sides bandwagon. Finally the main reason we wish to vote against this is similar to our first point, no state is truly neutral in conflict, there is always something to gain. Arming one side with weapons would be breaching neutrality by our standards, but not the WA's. As would a trade Embargo. We just do not believe any state can truly be utterly 100% neutral in a war near them."

Ambassador, I always appreciate it when ambassadors take the time to read through resolutions thouroughly prior to making their decision. However, I cannot agree that this perception of neutrality is correct. It is perfectly acceptable for a nation to refrain from entering conflicts at a time that may not be in their interest. Simply because some ambassadors think that it is a "right" of nations to exert their influence over others is patently false. Furthermore, the instances of "breaching neutrality," as you mentioned, are not permitted under the resolution. Neutral nations are not permitted to sell armaments, as detailed in clause 3c, and embargoes and subversive intelligence collecting, etc. are covered under clause 3b. So for all intents and purposes, a nation not only can be neutral, but it is required to be if it declares that it is. If you find you disagree with me, feel free to ask for further clarification, and I'll try to assuage your concerns to the best of my abilities.

The intent behind this proposal is good enough, but this is lost in poor wording and loopholes.

The People's Republic is opposed.

Perhaps your Excellency would care to elaborate, that way I may address your concerns properly?

Believing, with good faith, the intentions of a nation I would consider a good friend in the author, I have, in my power as WA Delegate of Europeia and with the favor of the people, cast my vote IN FAVOR of this proposal. Best of luck, Sciongrad.

(Image)

As always, I personally thank you for your continued support.

Honourable Delegate of Sciongrad,
While the Confederation appreciates the sentiments of this resolution, enough (five) of our states have concerns with this proposal to the effect that no conclusive result can be reached in our Congress. Four of our states have brought the points up in our Congress that the honourable Delegate of Preconstitutional Utopia brought to your attention. Securu, Iles Rouges and Jalisca fear that this resolution will do nothing about "police actions", thus allowing belligerous powers to skirt the resolution. The Free State fears both the imposition of WA law on non-member states and the ineffectiveness of the resolution if it is not imposed upon them, making the entire resolution problematic to begin with. The current wording as put to a vote in the GA does nothing to alleviate our personal concerns.

However, our Congress as a whole has expressed great support for the aims of this resolution. In our policy of strict neutrality, we appreciate the efforts of the WA to protect us and nations like us from belligerous powers that would have us drawn into a conflict without need.

Your Excellency, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to clarify as to what you mean by "police action." Unless there is another, more technical definition for it, I don't see why it wouldn't be covered under this proposal. Furthermore, I'm afraid I've addressed your concern regarding influencing non-member nations. I don't see much problem in this. It's been done before, through things like encouraging sanctions against non-member nations that behave in a way that is inappropriate or that may hurt the collective well being of member nations. I'm afraid I don't see the problem here. I'll gladly address any other concerns that you have, and I hope this discourse will change your opinion.

[TitanShadow12]

Many civilians and entire nations find their lives destroyed by war they wanted no part of.

[The Saint James Confederation]

After reading, re reading and then re re reading the proposal, Nikola Amatic, WA Ambassador of Velika Zeta decides to pitch in his thoughts:


"As a nation we are thoroughly against this! We believe that "neutrality" is a perception that can not truly exist. A state may declare it self neutral in a conflict but who knows what that states intelligence is doing on what front. I would further like to add that many "neutral" states stay neutral in conflict to benefit themselves at the expense of warring countries to the extent that when one side is on it's knees the so called "neutral" state may jump on the winning sides bandwagon. Finally the main reason we wish to vote against this is similar to our first point, no state is truly neutral in conflict, there is always something to gain. Arming one side with weapons would be breaching neutrality by our standards, but not the WA's. As would a trade Embargo. We just do not believe any state can truly be utterly 100% neutral in a war near them."

We find this thinking horribly flawed. Our Confederation has committed itself to absolute neutrality unless directly threatened. We don't enter ANY war under any circumstance other than direct invasion or the blatant threat of it. We also enforce a strict arms embargo on any and all nations currently at war, which by law may not be lifted until the conflict is over. Many nations also adhere to these standards, and we would appreciate it if the honourable Ambassador would respect our decision to do so. We truly do find war to be useless and without gain or reason.