[PASSED] Rules of Surrender

[The Dark Star Republic]

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.

Or option three: people would rather beat obviously bad proposals into dust and harangue "befuddled newcomers" than contribute to a decent proposal where their arguments might actually have to have their mettle tested...

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

Missing 'of'.

I also notice the category has changed; I must have missed that discussion. Mrrrr.

[Separatist Peoples]

Or option three: people would rather beat obviously bad proposals into dust and harangue "befuddled newcomers" than contribute to a decent proposal where their arguments might actually have to have their mettle tested...

OOC: I've been guilty of this, so I'm not about to throw stones. Generally I don't weigh in on topics I have no background on, so I'm hoping to give some regulars the benefit of the doubt.

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

Missing 'of'.

I also notice the category has changed; I must have missed that discussion. Mrrrr.[/quote]
OOC: Noted. The category was a purely political move, not unlike Chester Pearson's nuclear weapons act. I think it switches over well, but I'm interested to hear your opinion.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't really care that much about category, but I just don't see how this creates any real freedom from government action. The Prisoners of War Accord was more justifiable because it would almost always be government forces doing the detaining/interning. And on the idea that some categories are politically unpopular - well, they're only going to become more unpopular if people deliberately try to avoid using them for good proposals.

Although it's sort of implied, it might be worth explicitly stating that an order to give no quarter is a manifestly illegal order.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't really care that much about category, but I just don't see how this creates any real freedom from government action. The Prisoners of War Accord was more justifiable because it would almost always be government forces doing the detaining/interning. And on the idea that some categories are politically unpopular - well, they're only going to become more unpopular if people deliberately try to avoid using them for good proposals.

Although it's sort of implied, it might be worth explicitly stating that an order to give no quarter is a manifestly illegal order.

OOC: It creates freedom from undue abuse by what would inevitably be primarily governmental forces by ensuring protections from perfidy and outright deceit in negotiating surrender, protections of life and dignity while surrendering, and the guarantee of POW status immediately upon accepting a surrender. Not unlike, say, GAR#38 protects individuals from targeted genocide, and was considered a Human Rights proposal. That would be my thinking.

As for the explicit statement of banning no quarter be given, I'm a little torn. I contemplated adding a clause that mirrored the Hauge convention of 1899 by claiming that individuals clearly unarmed and obviously unwilling or unable to continue fighting be protected, but I think that those individuals are already granted POW status by the POW Accord by virtue of being captured, especially considering the POW Accord focuses on those captured by force in battle and not capitulating under negotiated surrender.

[Normlpeople]

Clover smiled at Ambassador Bell "My turn!" she said, smiling. "The only concern I would have is article 2.2, as we used to, in the rebellion days, use false surrender negotiations to camouflage retreat, which may fall afoul of this. Other than this, I like it"

[Separatist Peoples]

Clover smiled at Ambassador Bell "My turn!" she said, smiling. "The only concern I would have is article 2.2, as we used to, in the rebellion days, use false surrender negotiations to camouflage retreat, which may fall afoul of this. Other than this, I like it"

"It absolutely would run afoul of this. The entire point is to prevent sides from abusing a symbol of truce and destabilizing the trust nations have in them, which makes them useless. I'm afraid I see no reason to alter the wording to accommodate such an abuse.

"However, it has always been my opinion that an armed separatist movement in active resistance to a member state isn't covered by the majority of most WA resolutions by their very nature of separating themselves from their government. Unless that government succeeds in reabsorbing your rebels, I don't believe it would cover them, personally."

[Normlpeople]

"It absolutely would run afoul of this. The entire point is to prevent sides from abusing a symbol of truce and destabilizing the trust nations have in them, which makes them useless. I'm afraid I see no reason to alter the wording to accommodate such an abuse.

"However, it has always been my opinion that an armed separatist movement in active resistance to a member state isn't covered by the majority of most WA resolutions by their very nature of separating themselves from their government. Unless that government succeeds in reabsorbing your rebels, I don't believe it would cover them, personally."

Clover nodded "I just used the rebellion as an example, and you gave me the clarification that I was looking for. As much as I would prefer it to be limited offensive troop movement, I don't believe it is a sticking point. I can, and will, support it"

[Lalaki]

The people of Lalaki are concerned as to how this would be enforced in case of violation. How would the World Assembly ensure peace after the official end of conflict?

[Separatist Peoples]

The people of Lalaki are concerned as to how this would be enforced in case of violation. How would the World Assembly ensure peace after the official end of conflict?

"Honestly? Not my problem as the author of this draft. That's way out of the intended scope. This deals with surrenders during the conflict. The terms and conditions of the surrender are as far as this goes, and nations are obligated to act in good faith in that.

"Member states are already obligated to one extend a number of protections to individuals under their jurisdictions, which includes occupied territory by any reasonable interpretation. I was considering writing a separate draft to that effect, but, regardless of its legality, it is most definitely out of the scope of this draft."

Edit: enforcement is tricky. Violation is to be considered a war crime, and forfeits the protections already, which handles individuals. As for nations that institutionally violate this, well, by many standards of WA role play, that isn't possible...

[Defwa]

"It absolutely would run afoul of this. The entire point is to prevent sides from abusing a symbol of truce and destabilizing the trust nations have in them, which makes them useless. I'm afraid I see no reason to alter the wording to accommodate such an abuse.

"However, it has always been my opinion that an armed separatist movement in active resistance to a member state isn't covered by the majority of most WA resolutions by their very nature of separating themselves from their government. Unless that government succeeds in reabsorbing your rebels, I don't believe it would cover them, personally."

Clover nodded "I just used the rebellion as an example, and you gave me the clarification that I was looking for. As much as I would prefer it to be limited offensive troop movement, I don't believe it is a sticking point. I can, and will, support it"

I can think of ways that would allow for that but I'm not sure I would want to suggest them.
It protects the lives of the defeated, but only until they return to continue the conflict.

[Separatist Peoples]

I can think of ways that would allow for that but I'm not sure I would want to suggest them.
It protects the lives of the defeated, but only until they return to continue the conflict.

"The law was written specifically to allow leeway in the conditions set for surrender. POWs could be detained overseas for the duration of a conflict to prevent that. Nations can release them on parole before the conclusion of hostilities, and accept their word to not return to the fight. They can even punish, within established limits, those recaptured who broke their parole or escaped. All that was deliberately avoided. I'm always open to suggestions, though, ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: le bump. Still looking at submitting this week for a test run if things remain so quiet. Too quiet...Wednesday evening seems as promising a goal as any. Relevant comments, suggestions, and outright hate mail are still welcome.

[The Dark Star Republic]

It's incredibly minor, but stylistically you are inconsistent between Article I and II:

Article I. Those participating in either a parley, under the protection of a symbol of truce, or in the process of complying with the terms of a negotiated surrender...
...
Article II. Those parties either participating in a parley under the protection of a symbol of truce, or in the process of complying with the terms of a negotiated surrender...

One of the problems this proposal is facing, as did Ban on Perfidy, is that most people on the forums are broadly supportive of it, but the WA base as a whole will probably oppose it. That means you're not getting much critical commentary now, but that doesn't actually reflect the overall level of support. So it might be worth sounding out the forum yourself or through a proxy somewhere else, like the regions that will probably end up voting this down (GCRs, Europeia, Texas, etc.)?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Without bothering to update the draft, since it would be mostly minor stylistic updates, I want to bump this again with a query for those with sharp eyes: as it currently reads, does this attempt to legislate for nonmembers based on it's language? I deliberately avoided using the term member state to keep the flow fairly smooth and to include nonmember troops in the protections member states must extend. I'm too close to the drafting process to really trust my perspective fully, and I'd rather get general opinion before sending up a Mod-Flare.

Also, I'm awaiting feedback on a few off-site forums. Once I consolidate, I'll have an update and a final revision and take this thing for a test ride.

[The Dark Star Republic]

...as it currently reads, does this attempt to legislate for nonmembers based on it's language?...

According to how the moderators have recently ruled: yes.

According to a plain reading of the proposal rules, long precedent, and basic common sense: no.

[Wrapper]

...as it currently reads, does this attempt to legislate for nonmembers based on it's language?...

According to how the moderators have recently ruled: yes.

According to a plain reading of the proposal rules, long precedent, and basic common sense: no.

Ummm... what? Both of those referenced rulings are on the wording "all nations". I don't see the wording "all nations" in this draft.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Ummm... what? Both of those referenced rulings are on the wording "all nations". I don't see the wording "all nations" in this draft.

The word "all" does not have magic properties. As I said last time:

"There's a difference between the phrase "Mandates nations to X" and "Mandates all nations to X"."

OOC: A difference that isn't reflected anywhere in the proposal rules or in the post Ardchoille just made.

Anyway, I'll let SP have their thread back now; I don't see this proposal being deleted, so it probably doesn't matter.

[Point Breeze]

According to how the moderators have recently ruled: yes.

According to a plain reading of the proposal rules, long precedent, and basic common sense: no.

Ummm... what? Both of those referenced rulings are on the wording "all nations". I don't see the wording "all nations" in this draft.

I think he means that according to Kyo's post there, you need to specify "member nations" instead of just "nations." I think that's a bit superfluous, but its not my call.

[Wrapper]

Ummm... what? Both of those referenced rulings are on the wording "all nations". I don't see the wording "all nations" in this draft.

I think he means that according to Kyo's post there, you need to specify "member nations" instead of just "nations." I think that's a bit superfluous, but its not my call.

That's NOT what those rulings say.

[Point Breeze]

I think he means that according to Kyo's post there, you need to specify "member nations" instead of just "nations." I think that's a bit superfluous, but its not my call.

That's NOT what those rulings say.

Ok, so maybe that's not specifically what's being said, but that's the heart of it. The concern is that the resolution is ambiguous as to whether it refers to just member nations or both member and non-member nations. SP's intent of extending protections to non-member forces is both noble and legal. Requiring non-member forces to recognize and abide by the act is indeed illegal.

Perhaps expressly stating that intent in the act would resolve this?

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Without bothering to update the draft, since it would be mostly minor stylistic updates, I want to bump this again with a query for those with sharp eyes: as it currently reads, does this attempt to legislate for nonmembers based on it's language? I deliberately avoided using the term member state to keep the flow fairly smooth and to include nonmember troops in the protections member states must extend. I'm too close to the drafting process to really trust my perspective fully, and I'd rather get general opinion before sending up a Mod-Flare.

Also, I'm awaiting feedback on a few off-site forums. Once I consolidate, I'll have an update and a final revision and take this thing for a test ride.

OOC: I can see where it fails to specify member nations, simply those under parley protection. It could be read as forcing non-member nations to honour this draft if they allow for it. Perhaps a clarification on it applying only to member nations such would be helpful in alleviating the concerns.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Esteemed colleagues, the newest draft is up. Rather then wrestle with the ridiculous interpretation of not affecting nonmember states, I've altered the EXTENDS clause somewhat. Also, some significant stylistic revisions that do little to alter the effects. Barring other extreme input from here or the remote offices (OOC: offsite forums), I intend to test-fly this within a week."

[Point Breeze]

Very good. There's no ambiguity now.

[Separatist Peoples]

Very good. There's no ambiguity now.

"You have no idea how annoyed I am that I had to do that. I don't think for a moment that it originally affected nonmembers, I'm just not willing to fight with the Secretariat right now. The rhythm of that clause is just ruined."

[Wrapper]

Very good. There's no ambiguity now.

"You have no idea how annoyed I am that I had to do that. I don't think for a moment that it originally affected nonmembers, I'm just not willing to fight with the Secretariat right now. The rhythm of that clause is just ruined."

So just ask for a ruling on the wording. Again, if it doesn't say "all nations" it shouldn't run afoul of trying to affect nonmembers.