[PASSED] Rules of Surrender

[Defwa]

What's the purpose of international law, if it doesn't standardize things so all states know what to expect?

There's a precedent to leave it mostly undefined in WA#51 Humanitarian Transport:

4. CALLS UPON nations to adopt a standard for identifying their humanitarian transports, such as painting the hull of dedicated humanitarian vessels completely white or flagging the vessels with an internationally recognized symbol associated with humanitarian aid,

5. URGES nations to follow this code of conduct and to inform the international community what standards they have adopted to identify their humanitarian transports,

OOC: It made me suddenly feel old to remember being around when the debate for this was foing on.

I'm okay with that.
Or we could require people to register their surrender signal in order to have it recognized and then have some standard forms like the flag or hand signals.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Lo! and the Author did say unto His fellow ambassadors, 'I am convinced.' The next draft will include the following definition of symbol of truce:

DEFINES a symbol of truce as a signal for the cessation of hostilities and intention to parley by a party of the conflict, including signals of military tradition such as waving a white flag, laying down arms, formally striking the colors, or other internationally recognized symbol so associated;

As always, further suggestions are more then welcome. Its a little verbose, but I'd like to mollify both the traditionalists and those more attuned with the variety in the multiverse."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Alteration appended, and a new draft is up. I'm trying not to make a million incremental changes and instead keep a log of changes, but my hindsight is 40/20 and my OCD is nearly uncontrollable, especially when the moon is full. Likewise, I've altered the "...and just..." clause to be more detailed, specifically to include "outrages of personal dignity". Oh, and the strength has been bumped up to "Significant" for the time being. This does have some pretty strong protections, all things considered.

"Still looking for comments on the content, but I'm going to fish for some ideas on a title. Convention on Surrender was a blatant rip-off of the Applebanian title that I took as a placeholder when I decided to try for a different scope then my esteemed colleague's bill. Some of my ideas, after much thought, are:

Wartime Capitulation Accord
Rights and Duties in War
Protections for Surrender Act
Conduct of Belligerents Pact

As usual, suggestions are welcome."

[Elke and Elba]

"Alteration appended, and a new draft is up. I'm trying not to make a million incremental changes and instead keep a log of changes, but my hindsight is 40/20 and my OCD is nearly uncontrollable, especially when the moon is full. Likewise, I've altered the "...and just..." clause to be more detailed, specifically to include "outrages of personal dignity". Oh, and the strength has been bumped up to "Significant" for the time being. This does have some pretty strong protections, all things considered.

"Still looking for comments on the content, but I'm going to fish for some ideas on a title. Convention on Surrender was a blatant rip-off of the Applebanian title that I took as a placeholder when I decided to try for a different scope then my esteemed colleague's bill. Some of my ideas, after much thought, are:

Wartime Capitulation Accord
Rights and Duties in War
Protections for Surrender Act
Conduct of Belligerents Pact

As usual, suggestions are welcome."

We would suggest a more euphemistic name that hasn't to do with war at all - since we would expect that had cast the demise of Ban of Perfidy. :/

[Separatist Peoples]

We would suggest a more euphemistic name that hasn't to do with war at all - since we would expect that had cast the demise of Ban of Perfidy. :/

"What would you suggest, ambassador? I'm not sure what else to use, as this applies almost entirely to war and armed conflict. Instances of, say, defection without an armed conflict would be covered by a different ruleset."

[Araraukar]

"What would you suggest, ambassador? I'm not sure what else to use, as this applies almost entirely to war and armed conflict. Instances of, say, defection without an armed conflict would be covered by a different ruleset."

Howabout, simply, "Rules of Surrender"?

[Mundiferrum]

"What would you suggest, ambassador? I'm not sure what else to use, as this applies almost entirely to war and armed conflict. Instances of, say, defection without an armed conflict would be covered by a different ruleset."

Howabout, simply, "Rules of Surrender"?

The suggested title "Protections for Surrender Act" sounds rather nice, and perhaps just as....cuddly.
OOC: Might I suggest using some sort of poll to determine your proposal's title? The practice seems to be, er, trending here....

[Araraukar]

Howabout, simply, "Rules of Surrender"?

The suggested title "Protections for Surrender Act" sounds rather nice, and perhaps just as....cuddly.

If anything, I'd go for "Protections for Surrender". There's really no need to add "act" or "accord" on everything. These are WA resolutions we're talking about, not some voluntary international deal that each nation has to ratify on its own.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Personally, I think surrender should be in the title. This is a proposal about surrender, and it uses the word surrender throughout. How about 'Surrendering Parties Accord'. It even lends itself easily to being abbreviated as the SP Accord, which seems fitting."

"I am a bit concerned about 'espionage and intelligence' being covered in the perfidy clause. I realize you need to be careful as there's a separate proposal on that issue, but gathering intelligence isn't necessarily an act of perfidy: for example, officers being required to make note of war crimes, even once they are under enemy custody.

"I would recommend 'force deployment' instead of 'troop deployment'."

~ Daisy Chinmusic, WA Intern

[Araraukar]

How about 'Surrendering Parties Accord'. It even lends itself easily to being abbreviated as the SP Accord, which seems fitting."

Could run afoul of the branding rule that way, otherwise it sounds good.

Daisy Chinmusic, WA Intern

OOC: I've meant to ask, what happened to Inky?

[Sciongrad]

REEVALUATING the current standards of surrender in warfare,

THOROUGHLY DISSATISFIED with the status quo, and,

SEEKING to remedy this,

This is a bit awkward, partially because there are no standards to reevaluate. We've got pretty much nothing right now. How about something like "considering the World Assembly's enduring commitment to ensuring ethical standards in warfare, concerned that no uniform standards for surrender are currently recognized by the international community, seeking to resolve this oversight, [...]"

Article I. Those participating in either a parley, under the protection of a symbol of truce, or the process of complying with the terms a negotiated surrender are entitled to the following:

Overall, I like this. I don't have much in terms of substance that hasn't already been corrected, but I'll definitely follow this in case something comes to mind. Good luck and my delegation hopes to see many more drafts by the Confederate Dominion in the future!

[Moronist Decisions]

Overall, looks good. I may have other comments later but the general idea makes sense.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Personally, I think surrender should be in the title. This is a proposal about surrender, and it uses the word surrender throughout. How about 'Surrendering Parties Accord'. It even lends itself easily to being abbreviated as the SP Accord, which seems fitting."

"I am a bit concerned about 'espionage and intelligence' being covered in the perfidy clause. I realize you need to be careful as there's a separate proposal on that issue, but gathering intelligence isn't necessarily an act of perfidy: for example, officers being required to make note of war crimes, even once they are under enemy custody.

"I would recommend 'force deployment' instead of 'troop deployment'."

~ Daisy Chinmusic, WA Intern

"I can't say I'm at all opposed to this being titled the SP Accord...vanity aside, I'm torn between Surrendering Parties Accord and Rules of Surrender.

As for the bit about espionage and intelligence operations, I was very careful when crafting that sentence to include it as a part of the "using a parley to screen..." bit grammatically, so intelligence and espionage weren't classified as inherently perfidious. The idea was to keep officers from sending out a representative to negotiate as a cover to get a detailed look at the enemy's position. However, seeing the potential for misunderstanding, I've changed the word to 'Reconnaissance'. I'm confident that between the change and the "including but not limited to" catch-all, the vast majority of illicit spying through false surrendering will be stopped without either banning espionage or stopping necessary means of alerting the powers that be to crimes against humanity from occurring."

This is a bit awkward, partially because there are no standards to reevaluate. We've got pretty much nothing right now. How about something like "considering the World Assembly's enduring commitment to ensuring ethical standards in warfare, concerned that no uniform standards for surrender are currently recognized by the international community, seeking to resolve this oversight, [...]"

"Much obliged for catching the grammatical errors, ambassador. They'll be appended in the new draft. As for the preambulatory clause structure, I've adjusted it. I'm not one for especially flowery openings, but I think this addresses both the concern for accuracy and the need for flair."

[Araraukar]

"I can't say I'm at all opposed to this being titled the SP Accord...vanity aside, I'm torn between Surrendering Parties Accord and Rules of Surrender.

OOC: The first one could be initialized into "SPA", but if it starts getting referred to as "SP Accord", you may end up having to change it. The only ruling of this sort that I can remember off the top of my head involved an initialism that referred to a gameside region, so I'm nowhere near sure it would apply here.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I can't say I'm at all opposed to this being titled the SP Accord...vanity aside, I'm torn between Surrendering Parties Accord and Rules of Surrender.

OOC: The first one could be initialized into "SPA", but if it starts getting referred to as "SP Accord", you may end up having to change it. The only ruling of this sort that I can remember off the top of my head involved an initialism that referred to a gameside region, so I'm nowhere near sure it would apply here.

OOC: I don't think an abbreviation that involves that sort of stretching would count as branding, to be honest. It isn't normal for a resolution to have the first two words abbreviated and the last untouched, so I imagine it would end up being referred to as the SPA should it pass. Besides, as nice as it would be to indulge in that particular power trip, it isn't the driving force behind considering Surrendering Parties Accord.

[Araraukar]

Besides, as nice as it would be to indulge in that particular power trip, it isn't the driving force behind considering Surrendering Parties Accord.

Heh, I didn't think so, it's just that something similar happened once (that I was there to see it) and just wanted to give you a heads-up. I still personally dislike having ot add "Act" or "Accord" on everything. Still better than starting with "On". A big thanks for not making this "On Surrender".

[Chester Pearson]

Still not buying the argument as to why this is a good idea Ambassador....

OOC: Ugh.... Moral Decency? And Significant to boot? Even if I did think this was a good idea, I would vote against based on that strength. MD proposals tend to destroy civil rights stats, and I like to try and keep those up. Sorry man....

[Separatist Peoples]

Still not buying the argument as to why this is a good idea Ambassador....

OOC: Ugh.... Moral Decency? And Significant to boot? Even if I did think this was a good idea, I would vote against based on that strength. MD proposals tend to destroy civil rights stats, and I like to try and keep those up. Sorry man....

OOC: I share the distaste for Moral Decency, but there was simply no way to write this as anything else, much like the POW Accord. I'm still wavering on the strength, but the evidence points to Significant over Mild.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Ummm... Global Disarmament?

IC: Capitulation is a very strong word that pacifists like us find... well... derogatory at times. We agree that "Surrender Protocol" or something along those lines best describes this proposal. As for category we agree that, as written, it's Moral Decency, but we'll reserve opinion on strength at this time.

As an aside, obviously this would have no effect on us Wads. We don't fight, but we don't surrender either, you'll just have to kill or capture all of us -- if you can find us, that is. Heh heh....

Ari presses a button on his wristwatch -- at least, it looks like a wristwatch -- and instantly disappears.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Ummm... Global Disarmament?

OOC: I can't think of a way to make this GD without tying in some seriously unnecessary bs, like certain nuclear weapons bans have recently attempted. I could almost make the argument for international security, and try to claim this increases spending by making it simpler to take prisoners, but that's a pretty iffy argument. I've been looking for a way to spin this to a different category, but I can't escape the fact that shooting surrendering troops is, at it's core, a moral issue.

[Applebania]

OOC: Love that word. Capitulation.

[Percussionland]

OOC: Ummm... Global Disarmament?

OOC: I can't think of a way to make this GD without tying in some seriously unnecessary bs, like certain nuclear weapons bans have recently attempted.

And still are being attempted.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Draft 4 is up. Preambulatory (not perambulatory! Bloody autocorrect) clauses have been spiffied up, some grammatical changes have been made, and the title is now officially Rules of Surrender. SP Accord was just so very, very tempting, but in the end, Rules of Surrender was more concise. Oh, and I've changed the category to Human Rights. On review, I feel that I can justify that this improves the civil and human right of the combatants for fair treatment far more then it impinges on the civil rights of those who would rather slaughter everybody. Strength is bumped down to mild, as well. If the PoW accord was only mild, and this doesn't do substantially more, I'm not sure I want to push it. If the Secretariat ends up disagreeing, I can always change it, right?

Still not buying the argument as to why this is a good idea Ambassador....

OOC: I missed the IC bit here, so pardon the late reply.
IC: "Any reason in particular you find protecting surrendering parties from abuse particularly displeasing, ambassador?"

[Elke and Elba]

Chester is known to be a pedantic irritant, ambassador - I suggest you don't listen to him...

The attitude of treating the work of others like dung and his like some godsend has been more than enough to be honest.

EDIT: Back to draft. Given that I started the entire zealotry through Ban of Perfidy and also due to Mousey's ICC repeal, you do have my approval, of course.

[Separatist Peoples]

Given that I started the entire zealotry through Ban of Perfidy and also due to Mousey's ICC repeal, you do have my approval, of course.

"I always feel honored to have your delegation's confidence, ambassador. Much appreciated!

"I realize that this particular bill has been ignored for the most part, due to either the presence of higher profile drafts, or a spectacular natural gift for writing proposals. I strongly suspect the former, though I'll be happy to hear arguments otherwise...Nobody? Wait, Ambassador Landfree, did I hear you say it was most definitely the latter? Are you sure you didn't say anything? Oh, alright then...damn... Anyways, since submitting these things always causes them to get some more attention, I'm looking at submitting this for a test run in approximately a week. Less if I'm bored. Its hard to tell, really. Those with comments they're sitting on should consider themselves warned."