[PASSED] Rights of Neutral States

[Bears Armed]

(Not really forgotten, just “temporarily overlooked”, and definitely still in a high place on my ‘to do’ list [although admittedly with a slightly lower priority than trying to get this nation’s [Association Football ] team as far as possible in the current NS World Cup]… I'll try to get my reply to G-R worked out tomorrow.)

[Democratic Consensia]

We of the Consen Republic enthusiastically support this resolution!

[Bears Armed]

OOC: You have such a high character count because there's a lot of redundancies. For instance, you don't need to require that a neutral state not be involved in "a relevant current conflict," since it's already required that they not be involved in any specific conflict.

Are you saying that a nation that's involved in one conflict can't (or shouldn't be allowed to) declare its neutrality in another conflict? Allowing for that situation, whilst still keeeping a nation that's already been actively involved in a specific conflict from then declaring neutrality in that same conflict (for example to escape the cosndequences when its side is now clearly going to lose...) was the reason for my choice of wording.

On that same character-saving vein, you could use "state" instead of "nation." Not only does that save a couple characters, but it also gets rids of the ambiguity of what is an isn't a nation (ie. you can get rid of the piracy and terrorism language), and maintains consistency since "state" is used elsewhere.

I'll make the change for consistencey and to save those few characters, but if the "piracy and terrorism language" gets dropped then wouldn't that clause then effectively forbid the neutral to act against international piracy in any areas where any other state (even if that's another neutral, rather than a belligerent) is doing so?

You don't have to define materiel, since the word only has one definition. In general, that entire clause can be rewritten to avoid redundancy:

C. The state must not sell or otherwise supply or transport war materiel, or goods likely to be used in manufacturing war materiel, to a belligerent state, nor allow any entity within its borders or under its authority to do so, including private agencies or businesses, except as provided for by World Assembly resolutions; (characters saved: 148)

And yet, whenever the topic of neutrality comes up for discussion, there is debate about what goods do/should count as forbidden: Actual materiel but not (as I've included in the list) designs and components for them? Exactly what I've listed? All that I've listed, plus uniforms? All that I've listed, plus uniforms, plus any other goods (fuel, medical supplies, food, etc) that would be used by the belligerent's armed forces? Any good whatsoever whose supply would help a belligerent to continue fighting, including (for example) fuel and food for the civilian workforce? There might be only one definition of 'materiel' in Glen-Rhodesian law, but unfortunately the [NS] international community seems to disagree...

Article 7 is very dense and kind of confusing. It should probably be completely restructured for readability.

I'll be taking another look at it, along with the rest of the draft, now that I have more time available again. Any specific suggestions?

To answer your first question: No, there is no legitimate reason to allow belligerents to declare war on a neutral state, except for when a neutral state does something to lose its neutrality.

So even if it's obviously building-up to break neutrality by attacking the belligerent that wouldn't justofy an attack? Hr'rmm...

The second: This isn't easily answered. A neutral state should be allowed to build up an army and its supply of arms, in defense of itself and its territory. However, if there's intelligence that it plans on violating its duties as a neutral state, then I think the right of preemptive strike supersedes the rights of neutrality. But if we include that in this resolution, we will definitely need a resolution dealing with jus ad bellum, which the World Assembly has before been reluctant to accept.

Fair enough.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: The Bears' team is [sadly] out of the World Cup competition, and better weather is leaving me with more mental energy to deal with things anyway, so here we are again_

OOC: You have such a high character count because there's a lot of redundancies. For instance, you don't need to require that a neutral state not be involved in "a relevant current conflict," since it's already required that they not be involved in any specific conflict.

Are you saying that a nation that's involved in one conflict can't (or shouldn't be allowed to) declare its neutrality in another conflict? Allowing for that situation, whilst still keeeping a nation that's already been actively involved in a specific conflict from then declaring neutrality in that same conflict (for example to escape the consequences when its side is now clearly going to lose...) was the reason for my choice of wording. I'll take another look at it, though.

On that same character-saving vein, you could use "state" instead of "nation." Not only does that save a couple characters, but it also gets rids of the ambiguity of what is an isn't a nation (ie. you can get rid of the piracy and terrorism language), and maintains consistency since "state" is used elsewhere.

I'll make the change for consistencey and to save those few characters, but if the "piracy and terrorism language" gets dropped then wouldn't that clause then effectively forbid the neutral to act against international piracy in any areas where any other state (even if that's another neutral, rather than a belligerent) is doing so?

You don't have to define materiel, since the word only has one definition. In general, that entire clause can be rewritten to avoid redundancy:

C. The state must not sell or otherwise supply or transport war materiel, or goods likely to be used in manufacturing war materiel, to a belligerent state, nor allow any entity within its borders or under its authority to do so, including private agencies or businesses, except as provided for by World Assembly resolutions; (characters saved: 148)

And yet, whenever the topic of neutrality comes up for discussion, there is debate about what goods do/should count as forbidden: Actual materiel but not (as I've included in the list) designs and components for them? Exactly what I've listed? All that I've listed, plus uniforms? All that I've listed, plus uniforms, plus any other goods (fuel, medical supplies, food, etc) that would be used by the belligerent's armed forces? Any good whatsoever whose supply would help a belligerent to continue fighting, including (for example) fuel and food for the civilian workforce? There might be only one definition of 'materiel' in Glen-Rhodesian law, but unfortunately the [NS] international community seems to disagree...

Article 7 is very dense and kind of confusing. It should probably be completely restructured for readability.

I'll be taking another look at it, along with the rest of the draft, now that I have more time available again. Any specific suggestions?

To answer your first question: No, there is no legitimate reason to allow belligerents to declare war on a neutral state, except for when a neutral state does something to lose its neutrality.

So even if it's obviously building-up to break neutrality by attacking the belligerent that wouldn't justofy an attack? Hr'rmm...

The second: This isn't easily answered. A neutral state should be allowed to build up an army and its supply of arms, in defense of itself and its territory. However, if there's intelligence that it plans on violating its duties as a neutral state, then I think the right of preemptive strike supersedes the rights of neutrality. But if we include that in this resolution, we will definitely need a resolution dealing with jus ad bellum, which the World Assembly has before been reluctant to accept.

Fair enough.

[Araraukar]

There might be only one definition of 'materiel' in Glen-Rhodesian law, but unfortunately the [NS] international community seems to disagree...

OOC: The international community tends to gleefully jump on any possible loophole they can find, and lists of things are good sources for loopholes. I doubt you'll ever make a watertight list even if you tried. That's why I'm kinda siding with GR for simplifying it - "military materiel" maybe, and let the people that want to be inventive in RPing use that, leaving the rest of the resolution unshredded.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Are you saying that a nation that's involved in one conflict can't (or shouldn't be allowed to) declare its neutrality in another conflict?

No, I'm pointing out the redundancy. There's already a requirement of neutrality that says neutral states are not allowed to participate in any specific conflict. That would, by definition, include "a relevant current conflict," because that is a specific conflict. You can save characters, here, without changing the meaning.

Allowing for that situation, whilst still keeeping a nation that's already been actively involved in a specific conflict from then declaring neutrality in that same conflict (for example to escape the consequences when its side is now clearly going to lose...) was the reason for my choice of wording. I'll take another look at it, though.

This can be done by either requiring neutrality at the start of the conflict, or requiring that a state have never violated any of the responsibilities of neutral state, in order to declare neutrality. The latter option is probably the better one.

I'll make the change for consistencey and to save those few characters, but if the "piracy and terrorism language" gets dropped then wouldn't that clause then effectively forbid the neutral to act against international piracy in any areas where any other state (even if that's another neutral, rather than a belligerent) is doing so?

If they are fighting non-state actors, it wouldn't be a conflict between states. If belligerents of a conflict are active in that field, then I think it would be best for neutral states to stay away, because they will inevitably be drawn into the conflict if they put troops on the ground in an active warzone.

And yet, whenever the topic of neutrality comes up for discussion, there is debate about what goods do/should count as forbidden: Actual materiel but not (as I've included in the list) designs and components for them?

Well, the wording I suggest covers both actual military materiel, and the goods used to produce them. It could also be expanded to include dual-use goods. But honestly, it would be preferable to have an actual arms control resolution to deal with this, because it's a complicated policy area. I've tried to do that before and it never went anywhere, but maybe it's time to bring that draft back from the dead?

Exactly what I've listed? All that I've listed, plus uniforms? All that I've listed, plus uniforms, plus any other goods (fuel, medical supplies, food, etc) that would be used by the belligerent's armed forces? Any good whatsoever whose supply would help a belligerent to continue fighting, including (for example) fuel and food for the civilian workforce?

Materiel is any equipment, apparatus, or supplies of a military force. It includes weapons, vehicles, airplanes, support equipment, and pretty much anything else a military force would need to carry out its war. It would not include humanitarian aid given to a civilian force, but it would include things that go to, say, a gun manufacturing plant that has civilian workers.

There might be only one definition of 'materiel' in Glen-Rhodesian law, but unfortunately the [NS] international community seems to disagree...

There's no way we can ever come up with an exhaustive of materiel. This is why we need an ICJ!

I'll be taking another look at it, along with the rest of the draft, now that I have more time available again. Any specific suggestions?

The list is kind of disjointed from the article, for example. There's no language leading up to the list, like "the following have these certain rights, etc."

So even if it's obviously building-up to break neutrality by attacking the belligerent that wouldn't justofy an attack? Hr'rmm...

It depends on if it's preventative or preemptive. If a belligerent wants to attack a neutral state just to prevent that state from becoming involved, that's an illegal preventative strike. However, if the neutral state is, say, building up its military in preparation to enter, that's a violation of its duties as a neutral state. It loses its neutral status. Once it becomes clear that there's an imminent threat of attack, then a belligerent can go for a preemptive strike.

[Sciongrad]

After a brief sabbatical, my delegation is now active once again, and would like to bring this proposal back up for discussion. I'll respond to specific points brought up when I have more time on my hands, but in the mean time, I've updated the draft a bit based on some suggestions by the Bears and Dr. Castro. I'll be looking for some ways to cut the character count down a bit more, but if anyone has some suggestions that haven't already been listed, please feel free to share.

[Sciongrad]

I've restructured clause five for clarity and I've eliminated the list of specific war materiel to save space. Thankfully, we're now under the character limit by 23 characters. We might have a little wiggle room to add more if we cut down a bit more. If anyone has any qualms without a specific list of war materiel or with the new wording of clause five, speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Bears Armed]

I'd prefer to continue including a specific list for 'war materiel' if one could be fitted in, because of the serious scope for international disagreement about what that term means otherwise, but I can see that removing it is probably one of the easier ways of getting the proposal to an acceptable length.

2.The term "belligerent" shall be defined as any state or other faction with armed forces involved in a relevant conflict;

Would internationally-operating pirates be included under "any other faction with armed forces involved in a relevant conflict", meaning that a nation that has declared general neutrality would therefore be forbidden to protect its trade against them?

[The Two Jerseys]

I'd prefer to continue including a specific list for 'war materiel' if one could be fitted in, because of the serious scope for international disagreement about what that term means otherwise, but I can see that removing it is probably one of the easier ways of getting the proposal to an acceptable length.

2.The term "belligerent" shall be defined as any state or other faction with armed forces involved in a relevant conflict;

Would internationally-operating pirates be included under "any other faction with armed forces involved in a relevant conflict", meaning that a nation that has declared general neutrality would therefore be forbidden to protect its trade against them?

I'm not OK with this "any other faction" thing either. That's basically giving private armies the power to wage war at will.

[Sciongrad]

I'd prefer to continue including a specific list for 'war materiel' if one could be fitted in, because of the serious scope for international disagreement about what that term means otherwise, but I can see that removing it is probably one of the easier ways of getting the proposal to an acceptable length.

I would prefer a specific list as well, but the length of this proposal makes that difficult. Should there come an opportunity where I can remove some more text, I'll include the list again for the sake of preventing the type of debate you mentioned.

2.The term "belligerent" shall be defined as any state or other faction with armed forces involved in a relevant conflict;

Would internationally-operating pirates be included under "any other faction with armed forces involved in a relevant conflict", meaning that a nation that has declared general neutrality would therefore be forbidden to protect its trade against them?

Factions not supported by a state shouldn't be included - pirates, terrorists, etc. can't be forced to comply with resolutions anyway, so the definition will be changed to reflect that. Thanks for catching that.

[Karvlig]

Karvlig is in support of this proposal.
The only issue our Nation found with this proposal was the considerable loophole regarding non-WA nations.
That a non-WA nation can be made by a WA member to carry out any act of aggression in favor of one side in a conflict while the WA member state remains "neutral" is a large error that requires correcting.
-Official Executive Delegate to the World Assembly of the Democratic States of Karvlig,
Hannah von Domphrey-Leister

[Araraukar]

The only issue our Nation found with this proposal was the considerable loophole regarding non-WA nations.

Well, WA resolutions can't, by definition, force non-WA nations to do anything. They could possibly tell WA nations not to such deals with outsiders, but you can't make a non-WA nation (not) do something by WA legislation.

[Karvlig]

The only issue our Nation found with this proposal was the considerable loophole regarding non-WA nations.

Well, WA resolutions can't, by definition, force non-WA nations to do anything. They could possibly tell WA nations not to such deals with outsiders, but you can't make a non-WA nation (not) do something by WA legislation.

However, there should be a clause to prohibit WA nations from encouraging non-WA members to partake in conflict on behalf of the WA nation. Even though this sort of conflict cannot be altogether stopped, does that cause us to not try, and probably succeed at, stopping it?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Factions not supported by a state shouldn't be included - pirates, terrorists, etc. can't be forced to comply with resolutions anyway, so the definition will be changed to reflect that. Thanks for catching that.

Is it appropriate to be addressing non-state actions, in any case? The premise here is the neutrality is a right of states. Non-state actors are, I believe, but correct me if I'm mistaken, generally protected from warfare in the first place. Unless, of course, they engage in combat, making them unlawful combatants. In which case, they wouldn't be able to claim neutrality anyways.

I'm not really sure what's fully intended by the term "faction," though. An elaboration would be helpful.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Araraukar]

However, there should be a clause to prohibit WA nations from encouraging non-WA members to partake in conflict on behalf of the WA nation.

So how are you going to prove they did encourage it, if both the WA and the non-WA nation in question deny it?

[Sciongrad]

Factions not supported by a state shouldn't be included - pirates, terrorists, etc. can't be forced to comply with resolutions anyway, so the definition will be changed to reflect that. Thanks for catching that.

Is it appropriate to be addressing non-state actions, in any case? The premise here is the neutrality is a right of states. Non-state actors are, I believe, but correct me if I'm mistaken, generally protected from warfare in the first place. Unless, of course, they engage in combat, making them unlawful combatants. In which case, they wouldn't be able to claim neutrality anyways.

I'm not really sure what's fully intended by the term "faction," though. An elaboration would be helpful.

- Dr. B. Castro

My original concern revolved around the idea of factions entering a conflict on behalf of a belligerent, such as mercenaries. Given the constraints of the text's size, I've removed the wording as I feel that belligerent nations would still be responsible for hired or otherwise influenced factions fighting on their behalf. I believe pirates or terrorists were brought up at some point earlier in the debate, and just want to clarify, this resolution, even if it had kept the text, would not be able to dictate how such groups go about observing the rights of neutral states.

Well, WA resolutions can't, by definition, force non-WA nations to do anything. They could possibly tell WA nations not to such deals with outsiders, but you can't make a non-WA nation (not) do something by WA legislation.

However, there should be a clause to prohibit WA nations from encouraging non-WA members to partake in conflict on behalf of the WA nation. Even though this sort of conflict cannot be altogether stopped, does that cause us to not try, and probably succeed at, stopping it?

Clause six is the closest the WA can get to preventing the situation you've described, as far as I can tell. Due to the text limit, I'm not very willing to add any unnecessary or non-binding clauses, but if you do have some other suggestions, I'd be very willing to try and include it somehow.

[Free South Califas]

This looks a good law, except that nothing in it seems to define general neutrality as a comprehensive policy requirement, especially regarding belligerents whom one has not directly acted against (including with materiel; 'directly' as in, with meaningful knowledge of the intended target). Specifically, opponents of a politically-aligned belligerent group which one supplies personnel and materiel to.

For example, unless we at the Office of WAGA Draft Review are mistaken, Free South Califas can continue to simply send volunteering sailors and surplus materiel to support the libertarian socialist cause abroad, while claiming 'general neutrality'; after all, the State has been abolished here and there is no mechanism for mobilizing all the militias for a single external cause, we just have federations of labor which happen to include sailors suggestible to the pleas of comrades. Under this resolution, if we were bent on exploiting it, could we thereby reject responsibility for provoking an attack on our own borders by an ally of a target we help defeat? It has been imagined in our office that we could claim to be generally neutral, or even neutral toward that belligerent, while indirectly choking off their means of supply, perhaps even forcing them to attack. While our Federation would of course refrain from such abuse of WAGA resolutions, we are aware that other WA member nations are interested in exploiting them.

Our Federation's militias, while they cannot be commanded from above and there is no one with such control anyway, are networked for the purpose of mobilizing a unified defense on a voluntary decentralized basis; is that enough to consider our military action representative of something analogous to a state, and thereby one discrete unit which cannot be generally neutral because it supplies personnel and materiel to leftist belligerents, or is our federal defense network considered separately from the free actions of individual sailors and suppliers acting in solidarity with their preferred belligerents abroad?

We apologize if this is all too abstract - our thought experiments and resultant questions are intended to improve the resolution, which polls very well in South Califas and would likely receive a FOR vote.

Best of luck in passing your resolution,
Maria Ribaldo, F.D. (South Califas Naval Air Transport Base)
Califan WA Detachment - Office of WAGA Draft Review
97th Federal Assembly, Free South Califas

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Re the listing of what consitutes 'War Materiel' _ I've got my notes for the 'Rights of Passage' proposal that i mentioned earlier together, will get its first draft posted (in a thread of its own, of course) soon, and hopefully should be able to fit the list into that...

[Sciongrad]

This looks a good law, except that nothing in it seems to define general neutrality as a comprehensive policy requirement, especially regarding belligerents whom one has not directly acted against (including with materiel; 'directly' as in, with meaningful knowledge of the intended target). Specifically, opponents of a politically-aligned belligerent group which one supplies personnel and materiel to.

For example, unless we at the Office of WAGA Draft Review are mistaken, Free South Califas can continue to simply send volunteering sailors and surplus materiel to support the libertarian socialist cause abroad, while claiming 'general neutrality'; after all, the State has been abolished here and there is no mechanism for mobilizing all the militias for a single external cause, we just have federations of labor which happen to include sailors suggestible to the pleas of comrades. Under this resolution, if we were bent on exploiting it, could we thereby reject responsibility for provoking an attack on our own borders by an ally of a target we help defeat? It has been imagined in our office that we could claim to be generally neutral, or even neutral toward that belligerent, while indirectly choking off their means of supply, perhaps even forcing them to attack. While our Federation would of course refrain from such abuse of WAGA resolutions, we are aware that other WA member nations are interested in exploiting them.

Our Federation's militias, while they cannot be commanded from above and there is no one with such control anyway, are networked for the purpose of mobilizing a unified defense on a voluntary decentralized basis; is that enough to consider our military action representative of something analogous to a state, and thereby one discrete unit which cannot be generally neutral because it supplies personnel and materiel to leftist belligerents, or is our federal defense network considered separately from the free actions of individual sailors and suppliers acting in solidarity with their preferred belligerents abroad?

We apologize if this is all too abstract - our thought experiments and resultant questions are intended to improve the resolution, which polls very well in South Califas and would likely receive a FOR vote.

Best of luck in passing your resolution,
Maria Ribaldo, F.D. (South Califas Naval Air Transport Base)
Califan WA Detachment - Office of WAGA Draft Review
97th Federal Assembly, Free South Califas

Ambassador, while your military does seem to be highly decentralized, the fact that they all represent your "nation" (or at least, the loose confederation which is represented by you in the World Assembly) means that any interactions (as enumerated in the resolution) between them, should they declare themselves neutral (generally or otherwise), and a belligerent is forbidden. Therefore, supplying personnel and materiel to any leftist belligerents, should you declare yourself neutral, wouldn't be permitted in the first place. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, in which case, please clarify and I'll be happy to address your concerns.

OOC
Re the listing of what consitutes 'War Materiel' _ I've got my notes for the 'Rights of Passage' proposal that i mentioned earlier together, will get its first draft posted (in a thread of its own, of course) soon, and hopefully should be able to fit the list into that...

Glad to hear. Hopefully that will prevent any fretting by potential voters over the lack of a list in this proposal.

[Free South Califas]

Fair enough. If a military analogue like our network of militias cannot exploit the law, I believe there is nothing for us to disagree about. The office for draft legislation will re-examine the text and return to confirm (or otherwise) our support.

[Sciongrad]

Fair enough. If a military analogue like our network of militias cannot exploit the law, I believe there is nothing for us to disagree about. The office for draft legislation will re-examine the text and return to confirm (or otherwise) our support.

I'm glad to have clarified that! If you have other concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. My delegation hopes to enjoy your support when this finally comes to vote.

[Sciongrad]

My delegation is in no rush, but unless any criticisms are brought up, this will be submitted Thursday.

[Faleen]

This is a good idea, the Empire of Faleen supports this

[Debyshrier]

we agree with it in general but if i practically insulted someone , i could just declare myself neutral and get away with it . so i think you redraft it.