NationStates

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:08 am**

"Allrighty then, I've seen this idea kicked around a bit, and, in a stroke of sudden and uncharacteristic ambition, decided to give it a crack. So, ladies, gentlemen, and various fauna, please get your Red Pens, Shredders, and Flamethrowers ready for...

Rules of Surrender
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

COGNIZANT of the World Assembly’s enduring commitment to ensuring ethical standards in warfare;

FINDING UNTENABLE the international community’s lack of just standards on the treatment of combatants laying down arms, and;

RESOLVED to rectify this oversight;

The General Assembly,

DEFINES surrender as the act of combatants capitulating to an enemy force during a time of armed conflict between nations;

DEFINES a parley as the negotiation for surrender, ceasefire, or other form of truce between representatives of parties in an armed conflict;

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

DEFINES hors de combat as a state in which a combatant is immediately recognizable as unable to engage in combat, including the state of being wounded, incapacitated, unarmed, or otherwise incapable of defending themselves;

OBLIGES member states to extend the following protections and duties:

Article I. Those parties 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 are entitled to the following:

1. Protection from assault, injury, or detainment by any combatant party to the conflict while displaying, broadcasting, or otherwise openly utilizing a symbol of truce;

2. Good faith in all negotiations relevant to the conditional surrender by combatants party to the conflict;

3. Expectation of all rights and protections afforded by World Assembly law, regardless of the status of the combatants’ nation of origin;

Article II. Those parties 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 have the duty to:

1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and do not constitute an outrage of personal dignity, and;

2. Refrain from perfidious activity while under the protections of a symbol of truce, including but not limited to abusing the protections of a symbol of truce, feigning surrender to take advantage of the enemy, or using a symbol of truce or parley to screen force deployment, munitions resupply, or reconnaissance operations;

Article III. Those parties accepting surrender have the duty to:

1. Immediately recognize and confer upon the surrendering party all the protections of prisoner of war status following the satisfaction of the terms of surrender, and;

2. Refrain from perfidious activity as it relates to the process of negotiating and accepting surrender;

ASSERTS that member states shall consider combatants found hors de combat to be surrendering and accordingly extend the protections outlined in Articles I and III, subject to the belligerents’ reasonable ability to comply with the duties outlined in Article II.1;

DECLARES that those belligerents in violation of the duties herein shall have their protections as outlined in Article I.1 revoked as the situation requires;

MANDATES that member states consider the deliberate and knowing violation of these Articles a war crime, and exercise their jurisdiction over violators appropriately.

Rules of Surrender
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

COGNIZANT of the World Assembly’s enduring commitment to ensuring ethical standards in warfare;

LAMENTING the lack of right and just standards for the treatment combatants laying down arms by the international community, and;

DETERMINED to rectify this gross oversight;

The General Assembly,

DEFINES surrender as the act of combatants capitulating to an enemy force during a time of armed conflict between nations;

DEFINES a parley as the negotiation for surrender, ceasefire, or other form of truce between representatives of armed forces in armed conflict;

DEFINES a symbol of truce as an inviolable 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, or other internationally recognized symbol so associated;

EXTENDS the following protections and duties:

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 are entitled to the following:

1. Protection from any hostile assault, injury, or detainment by any combatant party to the conflict while displaying, broadcasting, or otherwise openly utilizing a symbol of truce;

2. Good faith in all negotiations relevant to the conditional surrender by combatants party to the conflict;

3. Expectation of all rights and protections afforded by previous and future international law, regardless of the status of the combatants’ nation of origin;

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 have the duty to:

1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and do not constitute an outrage of personal dignity, and;

2. Refrain from any perfidious activity while under the protections of a symbol of truce, including but not limited to abusing the protections of a symbol of truce, feigning surrender to take advantage of the enemy, or using a symbol of truce or parley to screen force deployment, munitions resupply, or reconnaissance operations;

Article III. Those parties accepting a surrender have the duty to:

1. Recognize and confer upon the surrendering party all the protections of prisoner of war status immediately upon the terms of the surrender being satisfied, and;

2. Refrain from any perfidious activity as it relates to the process of negotiating and accepting surrender;

DECLARES that those belligerents in violation of the duties herein may have their protections outlined in Article I.1 revoked as the situation requires;

MANDATES that member states consider the deliberate and knowing violation of these duties a war crime, and prosecute violators within their jurisdiction accordingly.

Wartime Capitulation Accord
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

REEVALUATING the current standards of surrender in warfare,

THOROUGHLY DISSATISFIED with the status quo, and,

SEEKING to remedy this,

The General Assembly,

DEFINES surrender as the act of combatants capitulating to an enemy force during a time of armed conflict between nations;

DEFINES a parley as the negotiation for surrender, ceasefire, or other form of truce between representatives of armed forces in armed conflict;

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;

EXTENDS the following protections and duties:

Article I. Those participating in 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:

1. Protection from any hostile assault, injury, or detainment by any combatant party to the conflict while displaying, broadcasting, or otherwise openly utilizing a symbol of truce;

2. Good faith in all negotiations relevant to the conditional surrender by combatants party to the conflict;

3. Expectation of all rights and protections afforded by previous and future international law, regardless of the status of the combatants’ nation of origin;

Article II. Those parties 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 have the duty to:

1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and do not constitute an outrage of personal dignity, and;

2. Refrain from any perfidious activity while under the protections of a symbol of truce, including but not limited to abusing the protections of a symbol of truce, feigning surrender to take advantage of the enemy, or using a symbol of truce or parley to screen troop deployment, munitions resupply, or espionage and intelligence operations;

Article III. Those parties accepting a surrender have the duty to:

1. Recognize and confer upon the surrendering party all the protections of Prisoner of War status immediately upon the terms of the surrender being satisfied, and,

2. Refrain from any perfidious activity as it relates to the process of negotiating and accepting surrender;

DECLARES that those belligerents in violation of the duties herein may have their protections outlined in Article I.1 revoked as the situation requires;

MANDATES that member states consider the deliberate and knowing violation of these duties a war crime, and prosecute violators within their jurisdiction accordingly.

Convention on Surrender
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild/Significant (?)

REEVALUATING the current standards of surrender in warfare,

THOROUGHLY DISSATISFIED with the current status quo, and,

SEEKING to remedy this,

The General Assembly,

DEFINES surrender as the act of combatants capitulating to an enemy force during a time of armed conflict between nations;

DEFINES a parley as the negotiation for surrender, ceasefire, or other form of truce between representatives of armed forces in armed conflict;

DEFINES, for the sake of this resolution, a symbol of truce as an internationally-recognized signal for the cessation of hostilities by a party of the conflict and desire to parley;

EXTENDS the following protections and duties:

Article I. Those participating in 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:

1. Protection from any hostile assault or injury by any combatant party to the conflict while displaying, broadcasting, or otherwise openly utilizing a symbol of truce;

2. Good faith in all negotiations relevant to the conditional surrender by combatants party to the conflict;

3. Expectation of all rights and protections afforded by previous and future international law, regardless of the status of the combatants’ nation of origin;

Article II. Those parties 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 have the duty to:

1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and just terms, and,

2. Refrain from any perfidious activity while under the protections of a symbol of truce, including but not limited to feigning surrender to take advantage of the enemy, using a symbol of truce or parley to screen troop, materiel, or supply movements necessary to continue the conflict, or deliberately engaging in espionage or intelligence operations;

Article III. Those parties accepting a surrender have the duty to:

1. Recognize and confer upon the surrendering party all the protections of Prisoner of War status immediately upon the terms of the surrender being satisfied, and,

2. Refrain from any perfidious activity as it relates to the process of negotiating and accepting surrender;

MANDATES that member states consider the deliberate and knowing violation of these duties a war crime, and prosecute violators within their jurisdiction accordingly.

Convention on Surrender

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Mild.

Reevaluating the accepted standards of surrender in warfare,

Thoroughly dissatisfied with the current status quo, and,

Seeking to remedy this,

The General Assembly,

DEFINES surrender as the act of combatants capitulating to an enemy force during a time of armed conflict between nations;

DEFINES, for the sake of this resolution, a parley as the negotiation for surrender, ceasefire, or other form of truce between representatives of armed forces in armed conflict;

DEFINES, for the sake of this resolution, a symbol of truce as an internationally-recognized signal for the cessation of hostilities by a party of the conflict and desire to parley;

EXTENDS the following protections:

Article I. Those requesting or engaged in parley under a signal of truce or in the process of complying with the terms a negotiated surrender are entitled to the following:

1. Protection from any hostile assault or injury by any combatant party to the conflict while under, bearing, or broadcasting a symbol of truce;

2. Good-faith in all negotiations relevant to the conditional surrender by combatants party to the conflict;

3. Expectation of all rights and protections afforded by previous and future international law, regardless of the status of the combatants’ nation of origin;
Article II. Those parties requesting or engaged in parley under the symbol of truce or in the process of complying with the terms of a negotiated surrender have the duty to:

1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and just terms;

2. Refrain from any and all perfidious activity while under the protections of a symbol of truce, including but not limited to feigning surrender to take advantage of the enemy, using the signal of truce to move troops, materiel, or supplies necessary to continue the conflict, or deliberately engage in espionage or intelligence operations;
Article III. Those parties accepting surrender have the duty to:

1. Recognize and confer upon the surrendering party all the protections of prisoner of war status immediately upon the terms of the surrender being satisfied;

2. Refrain from any and all perfidious activity as it relates to the process of negotiating and accepting surrender;

MANDATES that member states consider the deliberate and knowing violation of their relevant duties a war crime.

"Yes, I know how similar the title is to the Applebanian version. Titles aren't my strong point, and its a placeholder. ~2664 characters with spaces, so I still have room to expand. I'm still trying to work out some of the coding, but I'm afraid the fine-tuning of the formatting isn't a major concern. I hoped to write this with the intention of keeping it compatible with other bills to limit perfidious acts." Bell's gaze shifts hopefully towards the E&E delegation.

OOC: Minor edits of format, punctuation, and grammar will be made without announcement or redrafting. Major content alterations will merit new drafts.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:20 am**

NOTICE: This bill does not force any nation to accept offers of surrender. Please don't fool yourself into thinking this.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:34 am**

I like it. :clap:

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:45 am**

Percussionland wrote:I like it.

"I appreciate your support, ambassador, but I was really hoping for my esteemed colleagues to shred it, cover it in red pen, stomp on it, slap it around a bit, put out cigarettes on it, spit on it a little, and generally defile it...er, figuratively, of course...so I can make corrections."

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:07 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I appreciate your support, ambassador, but I was really hoping for my esteemed colleagues to shred it, cover it in red pen, stomp on it, slap it around a bit, put out cigarettes on it, spit on it a little, and generally defile it...er, figuratively, of course...so I can make corrections."

If you're looking for someone to copulate with it as well...

Okay, let's see, the formatting obviously needs work (line breaks between paragraphs, end each paragraph with a period or a semicolon, not a colon, etc.), the "for the sake of this resolution" is unneeded (obviously you're defining it for the purposes of this resolution and not for other purposes), needs a colon at the end of the "Extends" line, the "Article I" line is a bit clunky, and strength, eh, what makes you so sure it isn't mild? It's specific to surrender/parley situations and not other military actions.

Then again, as pacifists, we find the whole notion of war bloody silly, even literally so.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:08 am**

Okay, then.

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Convention on Surrender
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Probably more then Mild.

Reevaluating the accepted standards of surrender in warfare,
Thoroughly dissatisfied with the current status quo, and,
Which is?
Seeking to remedy this,
The General Assembly,
Defines surrender as the act of combatants capitulating to an enemy force during a time of armed conflict between nations,
Not necessarily capitulation, that infers surrendering peacefully before or at the start of a conflict. They could have marched into the nation and seized control, the surrender just being the written document outlining this.
Defines, for the sake of this resolution, a parley as the negotiation for surrender, ceasefire, or other form of truce between representatives of armed forces in armed conflict,
Defines, for the sake of this resolution, a symbol of truce as an internationally-recognized signal for the cessation of hostilities by a party of the conflict and desire to parley,
Extends the following protections,
Article I. Those requesting or engaged in parley under a signal of truce or in the process of complying with the terms a negotiated surrender are entitled to the following:
Surrender or truce, or ceasefire, ect...
1. Protection from any hostile assault or injury by any combatant party to the conflict while under, bearing, or broadcasting a symbol of truce,
Please outline what a symbol of truce is, as a nation could murder diplomats under the argument of misinterpreting their symbol of truce.
2. Good-faith in all negotiations relevant to the conditional surrender by combatants party to the conflict,
Or unconditional.
3. Expectation of all rights and protections afforded by previous and future international law, regardless of the status of the combatants’ nation of origin.
Wait, if its in other laws, then why is it this one? It would be understood if other laws also protect war negotiators.
Article II. Those parties requesting or engaged in parley under the symbol of truce or in the process of complying with the terms of a negotiated surrender have the duty to:
1. Comply, in good faith, with all accepted terms of surrender, insofar as they are legal and just terms,
2. Refrain from any and all perfidious activity while under the protections of a symbol of truce, including but not limited to feigning surrender to take advantage of the enemy, using the signal of truce to move troops, materiel, or supplies necessary to continue the conflict, or deliberately engage in espionage or intelligence operations.
I would define it. A nation might say that their definition of perfidious action is different from yours, and use this as a potential loophole.
Article III. Those parties accepting surrender have the duty to:
1. Recognize and confer upon the surrendering party all the protections of prisoner of war status immediately upon the terms of the surrender being satisfied,
Why? If they are fighting a psychotic dictator who put POWs into labor camps and tortured them, you are paying them to torture your soldiers and use them as labor.
2. Refrain from any and all perfidious activity as it relates to the process of negotiating and accepting surrender.
Again, define it.
Mandates that member states consider the deliberate and knowing violation of their relevant duties a war crime.

In conclusion, I think that this is a very good idea and a good first draft. It needs some work, but I would definitely support this. :clap:

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:25 am**

"Lets see...

Which is?

The status quo is a lack of regulation. Since it's perambulatory, it doesn't really need to be ultra-specific in my opinion, but I'm open to adjusting.

Not necessarily capitulation, that infers surrendering peacefully before or at the start of a conflict. They could have marched into the nation and seized control, the surrender just being the written document outlining this.

Surrendering due to an inability to fight is capitulation.

Capitulation: the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand.

Doing so peacefully isn't a prerequisite.

Surrender or truce, or ceasefire, ect...

Truces and ceasefires are generally unofficial, and don't involve the same level of protection and are excluded. Generally, they involve both sides not shooting so they can do all the necessary moving of materiel and troops to restart. Unlike surrendering, where a violation involves potentially little means by which to respond, a ceasefire can be responded to by simply reigniting hostilities. As such, nations are welcome to set the specific terms as they see fit.

Please outline what a symbol of truce is, as a nation could murder diplomats under the argument of misinterpreting their symbol of truce.

There isn't an effective way to. If one surrenders by waving white flag, that is all well and good, but what about nations that don't use flags? This covers everything from a radio broadcast, a ship striking its colors, a craft lowering it's shields and powering down it's warp core, an aircraft wagging its wings in response to a demand and adjusting course as such, a physical gesture, a particularly colored flare, etc., that would be considered "internationally recognized". Though I don't like the way "Symbol of truce" rolls off the tongue...

Or unconditional.

Unconditional surrender generally involves no particular negotiation, since it only guarantees what is enshrined in international law.

Wait, if its in other laws, then why is it this one? It would be understood if other laws also protect war negotiators.

That was meant as a tip of the hat to resolutions such as the Charter on Civil Rights, Convention on Wartime Deceased, etc.

I would define it. A nation might say that their definition of perfidious action is different from yours, and use this as a potential loophole.

I have a nice little list of "Including but not limited to" there. I see the concern. I'll consider adding a definition, but since this covers perfidy as it relates to surrender only, it isn't a subject I want to expound on significantly. I'll tuck that into my notes and see what the masses say, since perfidy is apparently such an alien subject to many. Thank you.

Why? If they are fighting a psychotic dictator who put POWs into labor camps and tortured them, you are paying them to torture your soldiers and use them as labor.

Fortunately, WA Members are bound by GAR#18 on that matter. That is why the clause was phrased as such."

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:35 am**

Wrapper wrote:If you're looking for someone to copulate with it as well...

Okay, let's see, the formatting obviously needs work (line breaks between paragraphs, end each paragraph with a period or a semicolon, not a colon, etc.), the "for the sake of this resolution" is unneeded (obviously you're defining it for the purposes of this resolution and not for other purposes), needs a colon at the end of the "Extends" line, the "Article I" line is a bit clunky, and strength, eh, what makes you so sure it isn't mild? It's specific to surrender/parley situations and not other military actions.

Then again, as pacifists, we find the whole notion of war bloody silly, even literally so.

OOC: The formatting will follow when I'm not at work ducking responsibility!

IC: "I'm open to suggestions for edits. I wanted to make absolutely sure that I included all necessary situations without ambiguity, regardless of finesse. I wrestled with the strength, and the more I ponder on it, the more I'm considering this to be a Mild proposal, given that GAR#18 (which this is set up to work closely with) is also Mild."

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:11 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:The status quo is a lack of regulation. Since it's perambulatory,

"preambulatory", actually: There's a difference.
(A "perambulatory" clause would be walking around...

)

Please outline what a symbol of truce is, as a nation could murder diplomats under the argument of misinterpreting their symbol of truce.

There isn't an effective way to. If one surrenders by waving white flag, that is all well and good, but what about nations that don't use flags?

Or any nation whose national flag is in fact a plain white one...

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:26 am**

"I like the draft. Not much substantive to contribute at the moment, but in II.2, you've got lost in a list. 'Engage' should be a participle: '...or deliberately engaging in...'. You should also be consistent about whether or not you're hyphenating 'good-faith'/'good faith' in I.2/II.1.

"I'm mildly concerned about 'and just' in II.1. People have fought an awful lot of wars, and committed an awful lot of crimes therein, in the name of 'just' causes. I'm having trouble teasing out what actual impact would be needed, but I'm curious as to your reasoning for including it further to 'legal'.

"No real opinion on the strength, but I would say Significant purely based on the fact that the WA has passed so many Human Rights resolutions that it's actually pretty hard to write higher strength Moral Decency resolutions, and given this one has real mandates, it should qualify. I strongly doubt even significant concerns over strength would amount to anything more than the mildest of challenges, though."

~ Daisy Chinmusic, WA Intern, DSR Office of Foreign Policy and Shouting

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:41 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"I like the draft. Not much substantive to contribute at the moment, but in II.2, you've got lost in a list. 'Engage' should be a participle: '...or deliberately engaging in...'. You should also be consistent about whether or not you're hyphenating 'good-faith'/'good faith' in I.2/II.1.

"Duly noted for the next draft."

"I'm mildly concerned about 'and just' in II.1. People have fought an awful lot of wars, and committed an awful lot of crimes therein, in the name of 'just' causes. I'm having trouble teasing out what actual impact would be needed, but I'm curious as to your reasoning for including it further to 'legal'.

"The idea was to prevent soldiers from having to do something untenable, such as, say, stripping naked to surrender, burning their colors, or abandoning their wounded. While Prevention of Torture excludes the worst of those violations, I thought that the inclusion would offer a little leeway if it ever came to the ICC or relevant authority."

"No real opinion on the strength, but I would say Significant purely based on the fact that the WA has passed so many Human Rights resolutions that it's actually pretty hard to write higher strength Moral Decency resolutions, and given this one has real mandates, it should qualify. I strongly doubt even significant concerns over strength would amount to anything more than the mildest of challenges, though."

~ Daisy Chinmusic, WA Intern, DSR Office of Foreign Policy and Shouting

"Based on GAR#18's strength compared to it's scope, I intend to leave this as Mild for the time being. I'll see how this evolves and make the call later. As always, we appreciate the Dark Star Republic's insight, be it from an intern or ambassador-turned-frycook."

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:46 am**

Well done SP, I'm looking forward to this.

I'm not touching this with a ten-foot barge pole because surrender is a tricky topic - and one a lot more due to history and customs predating Geneva

Good luck!

(P.S. I'll be here to help, as usual. I'll try to see how my draft can be suited to complement yours!)

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:54 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
There isn't an effective way to. If one surrenders by waving white flag, that is all well and good, but what about nations that don't use flags?
Or any nation whose national flag is in fact a plain white one...

You could list the sign of truce as somehow displaying the sign of The General Assembly or The Security Council on a white background, be it projection from a space ship, flag, video transmission, picture enclosed in a letter, etc...

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:18 pm**

Percussionland wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Or any nation whose national flag is in fact a plain white one...

You could list the sign of truce as somehow displaying the sign of The General Assembly or The Security Council on a white background, be it projection from a space ship, flag, video transmission, picture enclosed in a letter, etc...

"Yes, I certainly could. The logistical concerns for members flying a flag of the General Assembly would be negligible, and it would certainly be unique. The technology would likewise not be an issue, though it may run afoul of duplicating some humanitarian missions' symbols.

"However, nonmember access to these flags would be iffy, since this is worded in such a manner that member states need to apply the same standards to captured nonmember nation troops as member state soldiers. Likewise, assuring that every soldier or every unit had such access would be difficult, especially considering how much equipment is straight-up lost during deployment and long tours of duty. I think that, overall, keeping the specifics vague will do far more for units out in the field. In almost any age, it is very difficult to reasonably claim that any nation is so ignorant of the SOP, cultures, and body language of a belligerent that you are in an active armed conflict with. If they can, it won't be very long before they can't anymore.

"If that very rare situation were to happen, and I grant that it has, then I'm sure a court of law will have leniency on those who made a critical decision based on the information available at that moment and ended up making the wrong one."

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:31 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Percussionland wrote:You could list the sign of truce as somehow displaying the sign of The General Assembly or The Security Council on a white background, be it projection from a space ship, flag, video transmission, picture enclosed in a letter, etc...

"Yes, I certainly could. The logistical concerns for members flying a flag of the General Assembly would be negligible, and it would certainly be unique. The technology would likewise not be an issue, though it may run afoul of duplicating some humanitarian missions' symbols.

"However, nonmember access to these flags would be iffy, since this is worded in such a manner that member states need to apply the same standards to captured nonmember nation troops as member state soldiers. Likewise, assuring that every soldier or every unit had such access would be difficult, especially considering how much equipment is straight-up lost during deployment and long tours of duty. I think that, overall, keeping the specifics vague will do far more for units out in the field. In almost any age, it is very difficult to reasonably claim that any nation is so ignorant of the SOP, cultures, and body language of a belligerent that you are in an active armed conflict with. If they can, it won't be very long before they can't anymore.

"If that very rare situation were to happen, and I grant that it has, then I'm sure a court of law will have leniency on those who made a critical decision based on the information available at that moment and ended up making the wrong one."

For safety's sake, I would only 'encourage' members to extend this to non member combatants considering non members don't have any rules against perfidy.

That, or void these protections if the enemy has a history of faking surrender.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:44 pm**

Defwa wrote:For safety's sake, I would only 'encourage' members to extend this to non member combatants considering non members don't have any rules against perfidy.

That, or void these protections if the enemy has a history of faking surrender.

"Since nothing in this compels you to accept a surrender, I'm not sure that is necessary. Troops of any origin already forfeit their protections if they fail to comply. If a nonmember force agrees to an unconditional surrender (bearing in mind that an unconditional surrender just means the surrendering force asks for nothing except to be allowed to surrender), Defwaen officers can still take whatever countermeasures against such a threat they choose.

"While I'm the first to err on the side of caution when nonmembers are concerned, I do draw the line at making such basic rules of war optional."

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:45 pm**

Defwa wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Yes, I certainly could. The logistical concerns for members flying a flag of the General Assembly would be negligible, and it would certainly be unique. The technology would likewise not be an issue, though it may run afoul of duplicating some humanitarian missions' symbols.

"However, nonmember access to these flags would be iffy, since this is worded in such a manner that member states need to apply the same standards to captured nonmember nation troops as member state soldiers. Likewise, assuring that every soldier or every unit had such access would be difficult, especially considering how much equipment is straight-up lost during deployment and long tours of duty. I think that, overall, keeping the specifics vague will do far more for units out in the field. In almost any age, it is very difficult to reasonably claim that any nation is so ignorant of the SOP, cultures, and body language of a belligerent that you are in an active armed conflict with. If they can, it won't be very long before they can't anymore.

"If that very rare situation were to happen, and I grant that it has, then I'm sure a court of law will have leniency on those who made a critical decision based on the information available at that moment and ended up making the wrong one."

For safety's sake, I would only 'encourage' members to extend this to non member combatants considering non members don't have any rules against perfidy.

That, or void these protections if the enemy has a history of faking surrender.

I'm actually waiting for Bears Armed's Wildfire thingum to get through and see how his/its new clause works on voluntary inclusion of non-member states.

If it works, I'll probably do something like that and protect only those nations who do sign it - (meaning all of WA and certain nons), thus making it a fully-fledged charter in its own right.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:53 pm**

OOC: Draft 2 is up, mostly because I didn't want to deal with sending the document I was making corrections on to myself for home use.

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm**

I like it. I'm not one for poking holes either, unfortunately. . . :clap:

Posted: **Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:54 pm**

Defwa wrote:For safety's sake, I would only 'encourage' members to extend this to non member combatants considering non members don't have any rules against perfidy.

Hey now, let's be precise. I'm pretty sure what you meant to say was "don't have any international rules against perfidy".

OOC: 4 am in the morning, will return to this after brain has had sleep.

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:07 pm**

"I'm genuinely curious about the prevailing opinions on including a definition of perfidious actions. While the term itself isn't especially complicated, recent events have proven that most representatives can't tell the difference between a ruse and a war crime."

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:37 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm genuinely curious about the prevailing opinions on including a definition of perfidious actions. While the term itself isn't especially complicated, recent events have proven that most representatives can't tell the difference between a ruse and a war crime."

Defining a complicated concept has never stopped people in the World Assembly from being ignorant or downright wrong about it.

Anyways, you might want to actually say what symbols are internationally recognized as a symbol of truce. The World Assembly is the perfect place to determine what is internationally recognized.

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:45 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Anyways, you might want to actually say what symbols are internationally recognized as a symbol of truce. The World Assembly is the perfect place to determine what is internationally recognized.

"A regrettable truth. I'd really rather not define it if I don't have to...As for outlining specifically what is an acceptable form of surrender, I addressed that point briefly before:

If one surrenders by waving white flag, that is all well and good, but what about nations that don't use flags? This covers everything from a radio broadcast, a ship striking its colors, a craft lowering it's shields and powering down it's warp core, an aircraft wagging its wings in response to a demand and adjusting course as such, a physical gesture, a particularly colored flare, etc., that would be considered "internationally recognized".

I hoped that including the term "internationally" would expand it to cover all reasonable possibilities. Is there any reason this wouldn't work? Everything here is negotiable, after all."

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:42 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:Is there any reason this wouldn't work?

What's the purpose of international law, if it doesn't standardize things so all states know what to expect? There is no reason why the World Assembly can't say a white flag is the universal symbol of surrender. If a state doesn't customarily use white flags, that doesn't mean they can't start using them. Leaving things open to interpretation is really the last thing you want, if you're trying to make sure an army doesn't strike down surrendering troops.

Or you could get rid of the signal requirement, and instead just say that it has to be clear that troops wish to surrender. That can be done many ways, but the burden of proof would be on the troops being surrendered to that the soldiers aren't actually surrendering.

(In the real world, only the white flag of truce is statutorily recognized as a symbol of surrender, in the Hague Convention. But customary law is that many other actions count, too, like laying down your weapons and raising your hands over your head. Waving the white flag, while seemingly an outdated tradition, still does happen, though. Iraqi soldiers surrendered in the Gulf War by waving white handkerchiefs. Their commanding officers actually forced conscripts to hand over as much white cloth as they could find, even socks, to prevent them from surrendering. But waving their hands over their heads still counted.)

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:02 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote: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:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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. :shock:

NationStates

[PASSED] Rules of Surrender

[PASSED] Rules of Surrender