[PASSED] Wartime Looting and Pillage

[Imperium Anglorum]

"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and continued for a little while longer, 'I must remind the honourable representative that the Landmine Convention was repealed (Resolution 304) because "any area denial munitions available to WA member nations should be permitted in the defence of their territory from armed occupation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]

[Defwa]

I don't see anything here against blockades and bombing. Not a single bleeping thing.
I'm also curious what your bleeping solution to this supposed enforcement issue is.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't see anything here against blockades and bombing. Not a single bleeping thing.
I'm also curious what your solution to this supposed enforcement issue is.

'Interesting that you brought that up. I must agree wholeheartedly that enforcement is important, for the exact same reasons you cited in your commendable, impassioned defence of the ICC:'

Compliance violations occur but a nation's stated, official position should not be violation ... Not even pretending compliance in an organisation where compliance is a part of membership. Which goes into why we need compliance mechanisms like the ICC.

'Regarding that, this delegation believes that an organisation must be created to force compliance, and the lack of one is decidedly condemnable'

'However, the bill specifically mentions military force against civilians, e.g. bombing and blockade (as blockade destroys civilian ships), citing Article II, Section 1 of the bill'

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't see anything here against blockades and bombing. Not a single bleeping thing.
I'm also curious what your solution to this supposed enforcement issue is.

'Interesting that you brought that up. I must agree wholeheartedly that enforcement is important, for the exact same reasons you cited in your commendable, impassioned defence of the ICC:'

Compliance violations occur but a nation's stated, official position should not be violation ... Not even pretending compliance in an organisation where compliance is a part of membership. Which goes into why we need compliance mechanisms like the ICC.

'Regarding that, this delegation believes that an organisation must be created to force compliance, and the lack of one is decidedly condemnable'

'However, the bill specifically mentions military force against civilians, e.g. bombing and blockade (as blockade destroys civilian ships), citing Article II, Section 1 of the bill'

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

"Ambassador, am I correct in assuming that you mean a committee within this bill to enforce the clauses? If so, I'm afraid I don't have enough characters free to add one. My strategic planning with my entire series on war was to include no enforcement mechanism, to better spend the space on content, and follow it up with something like The Dark Star Republic's Prosecute or Extradite, Railaina's Universal Jurisdiction, or a various play on a replacement of the ICC. This way, the enforcement is centralized, to reduce bureaucracy and improve the quality of a future resolution by not requiring enumeration of specific crimes, as I included, specifically, the term "war crime" in every draft in the series.

"I think we finally understand each other, or at least I understand you and your position on enforcement, and I assure you that there is a plan in place. It's not the short-term, self-contained solution so many resolutions strive for, but I feel that, in a strategic sense, it's the best option for this kind of issue.

"As to your points on strategic bombing, again, if a military can justify the necessity of risking civilians in an operation with no reasonable alternative, the action isn't pillaging. The language deliberately leaves that much room. Can corrupt nations exploit this loophole? Probably, yes. The Orcs of the Assembly have been know to abuse failure to fully conjugate a definition. But it's a small loophole that will require significant jumping jacks to exploit effectively, and, eventually, that too shall be closed. I assure you, it was considered long and hard before being added to the draft."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"As to your points on strategic bombing, again, if a military can justify the necessity of risking civilians in an operation with no reasonable alternative, the action isn't pillaging. The language deliberately leaves that much room. Can corrupt nations exploit this loophole? Probably, yes. The Orcs of the Assembly have been know to abuse failure to fully conjugate a definition. But it's a small loophole that will require significant jumping jacks to exploit effectively, and, eventually, that too shall be closed. I assure you, it was considered long and hard before being added to the draft."

'Your Excellency, although we agree in that civilians should not be hit by military action, we have radically different ways of pursuing that end. Ours is one which favours extremely quick wars which have minimal total casualties due to its length. Naturally, because of this paradigm, we support strategies which deprive enemies of material goods. Total war, in our opinion, makes no difference between civilian populations and military forces'

'Hence, this delegation expresses no qualms towards the strategic bombing and blockade of civilian factories and ships for the purpose of deprivation of goods, not the injury to life and limb. In that, because of the total humanitarian benefit which is expected from this, we still cannot support a provision which expressly prohibits the means by which nations can end wars faster and more effectively. We feel it is a very logical approach which borders on the immoral, but from the utilitarian perspective, it is likely to preform better than a strategy which prohibits strategic bombing and blockade in favour of conventional warfare without material deprivation'

'Furthermore, this delegation also believes that there should be a process to suspend any or all of the provisions should an enemy combatant not follow them, which would be likely in situations of war with non-WA member states'

[Separatist Peoples]

"If a nation is unable to win a war without treating civilians as targets and resorting to terrorist-like tactics, then I genuinely have no problem impeding such a nation's ability to wage war. Maybe such a tyrant will be forced to reconsider such an approach should this pass. At any rate, there remains a large difference between utilizing shock and awe tactics (which are much different then strategic bombing, which employs command and control targeting, not cowing the enemy with overwhelming force), and state-sanctioned terrorism. Enough to consider such tactics, employed carefully, as something other than pillaging."

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

'Then, Sir, if we are in agreement, should we not change the wording of the above to something like:

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, with exception for actions which are vital for the pursuit of victory.

[Separatist Peoples]

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

'Then, Sir, if we are in agreement, should we not change the wording of the above to something like:

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, with exception for actions which are vital for the pursuit of victory.

"Because, ambassador, that wording will widen the loophole to the point where every nation will declare any action vital to the pursuit of victory. The interpretation of what is vital goes from a specific list of that which is obtainable no other way and expands it to include anything that might end up working. It is too great an exception."

[Imperium Anglorum]

'Then, Sir, if we are in agreement, should we not change the wording of the above to something like:

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, with exception for actions which are vital for the pursuit of victory.

"Because, ambassador, that wording will widen the loophole to the point where every nation will declare any action vital to the pursuit of victory. The interpretation of what is vital goes from a specific list of that which is obtainable no other way and expands it to include anything that might end up working. It is too great an exception."

'Then, Ambassador Bell, perhaps a rewording like the following?', Parsons then hit a remote, displaying the following on the screen.

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, excluding manufacturing and logistics centres, with further exception for actions which are absolutely vital for the pursuit of victory.

[Defwa]

What you're offering as compromise only serves to neuter the propsal.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bump.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What you're offering as compromise only serves to neuter the propsal[sic].

However, the following is recorded in the transcript:

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, except where rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military action.

Whereas the Foreign Office suggested:

1. Wartime pillage shall be defined as the intentional use of violence against a civilian population and property by a military force, excluding manufacturing and logistics centres, with further exception for actions which are absolutely vital for the pursuit of victory.

'Your Excellencies, the clause necessitating an absolute pursuit of victory is therein. This delegation simply wants an exception regarding manufacturing and logistics centres, as they can prolong wars unnecessarily via the arguments we delivered some time ago. The year is 1913, and we are concerned about a certain Germany (OOC: as with you, OOC and IC are enforced when preferable to your argument and the current status of it) to our south-east'.

[Separatist Peoples]

"No. There is sufficient wiggle room in the clauses as-is: if it can be proven to be impossible to achieve the military goal any other way, and since we're talking about military strategy, that excludes ridiculous options involving severe casualties, causing a strategic or tactical disadvantage, or simply declaring peace, the targeting of civilians is permitted. If that is not fulfilled, it isn't justified. Your suggested language doesn't improve this, it creates a highly exploitable loophole, and I will not acquiesce on that."

OOC: Christ, I'm not sure what the issue is here? The requirements I laid out are the same as those in the Hague/Geneva conventions, and nations operate under those systems without undue strain.

[The Empire of Ebola]

There is no such thing as "non targets" in a war. Civilians, schools, hospitals, animal shelters, places of worship, ALL are fair targets to our military. We have won every war we were ever involved in. How? By blowing up their precious orphans and rescued animals and old folks homes!! It caused a morale breakdown of epic proportions so bad that our military was able to roll in and pillage and loot 24/7.

If you are going to be in a war you have to go ALL IN. If not, you might as well surrender!!!

[Falcania]

This is a terrible idea. If you are stupid enough to get into a war and LOSE it you deserve to be looted and pillaged. Here is some advice: DON'T GO TO WAR. Ok so what if you are attacked for no reason? Well in that case when and if you win that war you have EVERY right to strip the attacking nation are of whatever you want. And do not give me that old sob story of poor uninvolved citizens. If the citizens were so innocent they would have OVERTHROWN their war mongering government to begin with!!!! And if you lose the war? Well Darwin says survival of the fittest so too bad there.

Honestly all these ideas trying to civilize warfare, which CANNOT be civilized, is a waste of time and effort.

"I literally cannot put into words how little I think of this line of thinking, or those who espouse it. This tirade actually inspires me even more to pass this, if only to spite you, ambassador. Your comments are noted and roundly ignored."

In fairness, he has espoused the Falcanian attitude to war, and also to overthrowing one's government.

However, the Falcanian Delegation has followed the long tradition of Falcanian governance in pointing out that we have a culture uniquely suited for it. Written in not-so-distant history, the Falcanian military was renowned for unprovoked attacks on lesser-defended nations (who stated they had no desire to go to war - their desires did not, as it happens, factor into it). Their buildings would be razed, their populations slaughtered, and the structure of their societies broken apart to be fed to the vast, hungry war machine.

But the beast of conquest has a hunger that cannot be sated, and the warlords of Falcania soon found there were no more worlds to conquer. Other nations, nations too strong to be overcome on the battlefield, cut off their trading links with the warlords. The people of Falcania starved, and, as you so astutely observe, rose up to destroy their leaders.

There is no King like the Coin, my friend. Gold will always triumph over steel, and you don't accrue gold by overusing the steel. It is a lesson all cultures must learn, even if the rulers of those cultures don't live to see the lesson learned. We can only hope you don't end up learning the hard way.

--

As for the proposal itself, it has just enough loopholes that the Free Kingdom's experienced justicars of international law can weasel our way through it as it stands without changing the way we operate, but not so many that the whole thing has to be obviously scrapped. A difficult balance, to be sure. Approved.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Christ, I'm not sure what the issue is here? The requirements I laid out are the same as those in the Hague/Geneva conventions, and nations operate under those systems without undue strain.

OOC: Countries operate under these accords primarily by censoring and ignoring their actions. Gas warfare in WWI never should have happened — there was a Hague Convention banning it. It happened anyway. Now, NS is supposed to have gnomes which make everything perfect, so according to some, we cannot ignore such provisions. I would disagree, as international decisions require national involvement and enforcement in the real world, and there is nothing to make that different in NS.

IC: 'I hope you've seen, in the recent updates to the transcript, the moderateness of this government's proposal'.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I literally cannot put into words how little I think of this line of thinking, or those who espouse it. This tirade actually inspires me even more to pass this, if only to spite you, ambassador. Your comments are noted and roundly ignored."

In fairness, he has espoused the Falcanian attitude to war, and also to overthrowing one's government.

However, the Falcanian Delegation has followed the long tradition of Falcanian governance in pointing out that we have a culture uniquely suited for it. Written in not-so-distant history, the Falcanian military was renowned for unprovoked attacks on lesser-defended nations (who stated they had no desire to go to war - their desires did not, as it happens, factor into it). Their buildings would be razed, their populations slaughtered, and the structure of their societies broken apart to be fed to the vast, hungry war machine.

But the beast of conquest has a hunger that cannot be sated, and the warlords of Falcania soon found there were no more worlds to conquer. Other nations, nations too strong to be overcome on the battlefield, cut off their trading links with the warlords. The people of Falcania starved, and, as you so astutely observe, rose up to destroy their leaders.

There is no King like the Coin, my friend. Gold will always triumph over steel, and you don't accrue gold by overusing the steel. It is a lesson all cultures must learn, even if the rulers of those cultures don't live to see the lesson learned. We can only hope you don't end up learning the hard way.

--

As for the proposal itself, it has just enough loopholes that the Free Kingdom's experienced justicars of international law can weasel our way through it as it stands without changing the way we operate, but not so many that the whole thing has to be obviously scrapped. A difficult balance, to be sure. Approved.

"I'd appreciate hearing those loopholes, ambassador, because I don't rightly believe there are as many as you seem to think."

OOC: Christ, I'm not sure what the issue is here? The requirements I laid out are the same as those in the Hague/Geneva conventions, and nations operate under those systems without undue strain.

OOC: Countries operate under these accords primarily by censoring and ignoring their actions. Gas warfare in WWI never should have happened — there was a Hague Convention banning it. It happened anyway. Now, NS is supposed to have gnomes which make everything perfect, so according to some, we cannot ignore such provisions. I would disagree, as international decisions require national involvement and enforcement in the real world, and there is nothing to make that different in NS.

IC: 'I hope you've seen, in the recent updates to the transcript, the moderateness of this government's proposal'.

OOC: most nations are MT in Nationstates. Such enforcement is simply easier, as communications and technology allows for better records. I couldn't really legislate for a nation that will deliberately ignore a resolution, anyways, as they'd just ignore that clause, too.

[Falcania]

In fairness, he has espoused the Falcanian attitude to war, and also to overthrowing one's government.

However, the Falcanian Delegation has followed the long tradition of Falcanian governance in pointing out that we have a culture uniquely suited for it. Written in not-so-distant history, the Falcanian military was renowned for unprovoked attacks on lesser-defended nations (who stated they had no desire to go to war - their desires did not, as it happens, factor into it). Their buildings would be razed, their populations slaughtered, and the structure of their societies broken apart to be fed to the vast, hungry war machine.

But the beast of conquest has a hunger that cannot be sated, and the warlords of Falcania soon found there were no more worlds to conquer. Other nations, nations too strong to be overcome on the battlefield, cut off their trading links with the warlords. The people of Falcania starved, and, as you so astutely observe, rose up to destroy their leaders.

There is no King like the Coin, my friend. Gold will always triumph over steel, and you don't accrue gold by overusing the steel. It is a lesson all cultures must learn, even if the rulers of those cultures don't live to see the lesson learned. We can only hope you don't end up learning the hard way.

--

As for the proposal itself, it has just enough loopholes that the Free Kingdom's experienced justicars of international law can weasel our way through it as it stands without changing the way we operate, but not so many that the whole thing has to be obviously scrapped. A difficult balance, to be sure. Approved.

"I'd appreciate hearing those loopholes, ambassador, because I don't rightly believe there are as many as you seem to think."

Honoured delegate, this would, of course, render them moot. Don't worry, my friend, we will be polite in their usage.

[Defwa]

Don't worry, the Falcanians have issues with creative interpretation that defy the limitations of reality. The gnomes will sort them out before they can cause any real damage.

[Separatist Peoples]

In fairness, he has espoused the Falcanian attitude to war, and also to overthrowing one's government.

"That is exactly the attitude towards war I would expect from an individual who has never seen one, nor who has ever suffered significantly at the hands of a military force. I genuinely struggle to comprehend how preventing civilians from open targeting is somehow a massive onus that no nation is capable of taking upon itself for fear of losing every war ever, especially when plenty of functional nations do it all of the fucking time."

OOC: By your line of thought, everyn single one of these incidents would have been perfectly acceptable. That is an utterly abhorrent idea, and I am profoundly grateful that you are not in charge of writing and interpreting actual international law.

Honoured delegate, this would, of course, render them moot. Don't worry, my friend, we will be polite in their usage.

Bell takes a long, level look at the Falcanian delegation's chief ambassador, and reaches for yet another long pull on the neck of his Barnabus' Fynest Olde Wood Alcohol bottle, before replying slowly, "Ambassador, the entire point of this organization is for representatives of nations to debate and create international legislation. What you are doing is neither debate nor assistance. It is borderline gloating, and is both unhelpful and unwanted. We have ways of dealing with exactly this situation, if you insist on being obtuse."

Bell stretches languorously, then quickly pulls out an ACME Giant Butterfly Net, into which he deftly scoops the Falcanian ambassador. Rushing to the window, he chucks the net and ambassador both out and into the Memorial Reflecting Pool, five stories down. Gracefully turning the momentum from the defenestration into an about-face, Bell awaits the score cards of his fellow ambassadors, rating his speed, accuracy, and general form.

[Falcania]

In fairness, he has espoused the Falcanian attitude to war, and also to overthrowing one's government.

"That is exactly the attitude towards war I would expect from an individual who has never seen one, nor who has ever suffered significantly at the hands of a military force. I genuinely struggle to comprehend how preventing civilians from open targeting is somehow a massive onus that no nation is capable of taking upon itself for fear of losing every war ever, especially when plenty of functional nations do it all of the fucking time."

OOC: By your line of thought, everyn single one of these incidents would have been perfectly acceptable. That is an utterly abhorrent idea, and I am profoundly grateful that you are not in charge of writing and interpreting actual international law.

OOC: Falcania is very deliberately not a very nice place to live

Honoured delegate, this would, of course, render them moot. Don't worry, my friend, we will be polite in their usage.

Bell takes a long, level look at the Falcanian delegation's chief ambassador, and reaches for yet another long pull on the neck of his Barnabus' Fynest Olde Wood Alcohol bottle, before replying slowly, "Ambassador, the entire point of this organization is for representatives of nations to debate and create international legislation. What you are doing is neither debate nor assistance. It is borderline gloating, and is both unhelpful and unwanted. We have ways of dealing with exactly this situation, if you insist on being obtuse."

Bell stretches languorously, then quickly pulls out an ACME Giant Butterfly Net, into which he deftly scoops the Falcanian ambassador. Rushing to the window, he chucks the net and ambassador both out and into the Memorial Reflecting Pool, five stories down. Gracefully turning the momentum from the defenestration into an about-face, Bell awaits the score cards of his fellow ambassadors, rating his speed, accuracy, and general form.

Our one weakness...

[Separatist Peoples]

"Are there any more realistic concerns or actual loopholes people are willing to share? I have a hard time imagining that this is prepared to go to the floor, but I had similar misgivings about RoS and that passed by enough of a landslide to shock me."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Looking at this again, it looks like you've covered all the bases you set out to. One small item (in a couple of discrete spots) is nagging at me, though, and that's the language of "within [a nation's] jurisdiction." I can already smell the argument brewing "Well, this is occupied territory, so our court system doesn't have proper jurisdiction, sorry," interpreting "jurisdiction" in the narrowest geographic sense. I wonder if you have the space to change this to "jurisdiction or effective control."

If not, it's probably not a huge worry; most reasonable nations will understand that they indeed have jurisdiction over their own armed forces, location be damned. Compliance paranoia runs deep in our office for some reason.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Minor note, I think you should change 'Pillaging' to 'Pillage', as you don't actually use the term 'pillaging' anywhere in the proposal other than the title and subtitle. And we've already seen that some people will literally claim non-compliance on grounds of different conjugations of words!"

"I'm not sure this was ever addressed?"

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Nickel Empire]

This seems like a good proposal, I would support it.