Separatist Peoples wrote:"This law includes a clase requiring prosecution of these. When a replacement for the ICC is established, there will be a mechanism to prevent corruption of the system by nations setting up show hearings to circumvent justice towards their own. This bill literally cannot fix that. That is outside the scope, and requires an entirely different law. There is no reason that this cannot move forwards until that point, such that, when an ICC replacement is made, the spotty coverage is made whole.
"The belief that less legislation on war allows for faster, cleaner wars is patently ridiculous, as any student of history can see. Even if, somehow, the proof of history were all entirely incorrect, you'd be better of focusing on a repeal of NAPA, Chemical Weapons Convention, the POW accord, Rules of Surrender, the Bioweapons Convention, the Landmine Convention, Blah Blah Blah...because clearly those did nothing to reduce the catastrophic impacts of war, especially on civilians. No, sir."
'The honourable representative misconstrues the focus of the objection. When this delegation stated in the last cycle 'It is the enforcement of this bill, should it pass, which this delegation has issue with', this delegation meant something along the lines of: the fact that this bill must be enforced, not the act of enforcing it. We apologise for the lexical ambiguity'
'However, cognisant of the valid points raised in the second paragraph of the transcript here', Ambassador Parsons searched for about a second, looking for a paper, finding it, he continued, 'perhaps we can reach a compromise. Naturally, there are exceptions to the use of force in warfare, namely, those which are used directly to kill and not for 'shock and awe'. Never in this line of argument did this delegation espouse the use of weapons of mass destruction. However, it is quite clear that strategic bombing and blockades reduce the length of wars by deprivation of material goods, not by directly killing more civilians. Using shock-and-awe tactics and resource deprivation reduces civilian casualties compared to conventional invasions by large land-based armies'
Addendum: Nearly finishing, Parsons was handed a note from the Deputy Ambassador, and continued for a little while longer, 'I must remind the honourable representative that the Landmine Convention was repealed (Resolution 304) because "any area denial munitions available to WA member nations should be permitted in the defence of their territory from armed occupation by hostile non-members", which raises a good point on the availability of tactics for World Assembly members in defence against non-Assembly members'.
[EDIT: Added Addendum]