[PASSED] A Proscription on Living Shields

[Frisbeeteria]

A Proscription on Living Shields

Human Rights | Mild

---

Singing the praises of this Assembly’s many successes in the realm of protecting the unarmed and innocent in times of armed conflict,

Enthusiastically hoping further measures to be unnecessary, yet

Pessimistically noting the above to be exceedingly unlikely,

Remembering the protections extended to all manner of noncombatants and civilians in war by this august Assembly,

Disgusted at the increasing incidence of these protections being used against the very states sworn to uphold them,

Finding the practice of using individuals as living shields to be deliberately contrary to the historic goals of the World Assembly of protecting human rights and ensuring peace, and

Righteously amending this wrong,

1. The World Assembly defines the use of living shields as the act of an armed party intentionally utilizing unarmed noncombatants, be they volunteers or otherwise, to shield themselves or tangible assets in such a way as to compel a strategic or tactical advantage by way of manipulating a third party’s obligation to respect the protected status of the noncombatants or their perceived value therein.

2. The World Assembly further defines noncombatants to include both civilians who belong to a protected status or are otherwise taking no direct part in the hostilities, and those belligerents who, having been granted Prisoner of War or hors de combat status, are unable to take a direct part in hostilities.

3. Member states shall consider the use of individuals as living shields in the course of armed conflict illegal and a war crime.

4. Member states shall consider the use of individuals as living shields to be an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting or otherwise dealing with violators of international law, and are encouraged to take the necessary steps to protect those hostages from harm.

5. Member states shall consider a belligerent’s use of living shields a mitigating circumstance when dealing with the prosecution of troops who, due to the enemy’s violation of these provisions, find themselves directly or indirectly responsible for the accidental violation of a noncombatant’s protected status, and are encouraged to acquit the accused in situations wherein gross negligence cannot be ascribed.

6. Member states are permitted to prosecute unarmed noncombatants who voluntarily serve as living shields as they would prosecute combatants who utilize such living shields.

a. Member states are encouraged, in instances where it cannot be determined whether an individual was voluntarily or forcibly taken as a living shield, to offer to resettle those individuals in an area away from the conflict.

b. If those individuals refuse and, subsequently, are repeatedly utilized as living shields in a manner that calls into question the non-voluntary nature of their participation, member states are permitted to prosecute and detain them accordingly.

"Since my Armistice and Ceasefires project seems to be unpopular, lets find a bright-line issue we can all agree on."

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is delighted to see this draft", declared Lord Raekevik approvingly. "One concern though, regarding the last clause and possible contradiction of the right to habeas corpus. The Secretariat ruled at one point during that debacle that the detention provision of the Diplomat Protection Act could co-exist with habeas corpus, effectively denying diplomats this right, because diplomats are such a particular class of subjects (and apparently may be legally discriminated against by the WA). If the Secretariat would be inclined to accept the same kind of 'logic' for living shields and therefore that we need not concern ourselves with their right to habeas corpus, then this draft would seem fine. But given the Secretariat's tendency to solve legality questions inconsistently, perhaps a bit of care ought to be taken."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The Queendom is delighted to see this draft", declared Lord Raekevik approvingly. "One concern though, regarding the last clause and possible contradiction of the right to habeas corpus. The Secretariat ruled at one point during that debacle that the detention provision of the Diplomat Protection Act could co-exist with habeas corpus, effectively denying diplomats this right, because diplomats are such a particular class of subjects (and apparently may be legally discriminated against by the WA). If the Secretariat would be inclined to accept the same kind of 'logic' for living shields and therefore that we need not concern ourselves with their right to habeas corpus, then this draft would seem fine. But given the Secretariat's tendency to solve legality questions inconsistently, perhaps a bit of care ought to be taken."

"An excellent point. Perhaps changing the term "detain" to "prosecute" would work? That was a legal process with all rights protected would follow?"

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is delighted to see this draft", declared Lord Raekevik approvingly. "One concern though, regarding the last clause and possible contradiction of the right to habeas corpus. The Secretariat ruled at one point during that debacle that the detention provision of the Diplomat Protection Act could co-exist with habeas corpus, effectively denying diplomats this right, because diplomats are such a particular class of subjects (and apparently may be legally discriminated against by the WA). If the Secretariat would be inclined to accept the same kind of 'logic' for living shields and therefore that we need not concern ourselves with their right to habeas corpus, then this draft would seem fine. But given the Secretariat's tendency to solve legality questions inconsistently, perhaps a bit of care ought to be taken."

"An excellent point. Perhaps changing the term "detain" to "prosecute" would work? That was a legal process with all rights protected would follow?"

"Or, alternatively, removing the words that follow it", suggested Lord Raekevik. "Having a closer look at the extant resolution on habeas corpus, it does not actually define what detention is lawful, so if this draft legalises a certain kind of detention, then arguably, such detention is henceforth lawful. The issue then would seem to be with the duration of the detention, or more specifically, with this draft enabling detention for an undetermined length of time."

REQUIRES that nations employ the usage of time limits on detention so as to avoid the unnecessary breach of an individual's liberty and right to freedom.

"If this draft merely gave member states a go-ahead to detain, then the extant requirement of slapping a time limit onto that detention would still be in force. The problem would of course be that a member state would not usually know for how long the war will continue."

[Grays Harbor]

This could have some merit. Belligerents who use civilians as meat shields occupy a special place of hatred and disdain, and our armed forces and goverment consider it a war crime.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: The Empire will have to express its tentative support for this proposal. Now, about that drink I owed ya!

[Separatist Peoples]

This could have some merit. Belligerents who use civilians as meat shields occupy a special place of hatred and disdain, and our armed forces and goverment consider it a war crime.

Parsons: The Empire will have to express its tentative support for this proposal. Now, about that drink I owed ya!

"I had rather hoped to hear as much. This and the taking of hostages seems to be fairly universal issues, and my draft on hostage taking is still being considerably tinkered. Since both of you seem somewhat hesitant, is there anything in particular that concerns you?"

[Grays Harbor]

This could have some merit. Belligerents who use civilians as meat shields occupy a special place of hatred and disdain, and our armed forces and goverment consider it a war crime.

Parsons: The Empire will have to express its tentative support for this proposal. Now, about that drink I owed ya!

"I had rather hoped to hear as much. This and the taking of hostages seems to be fairly universal issues, and my draft on hostage taking is still being considerably tinkered. Since both of you seem somewhat hesitant, is there anything in particular that concerns you?"

(I was hesitant primarily because i was trying to read it on my phone at work between customers. Not the best scenario for comprehensive critique)

[Helltank]

Beliazrael: The Overlordship cannot in good faith support this proposal. The use of civilians or other non-combatants as meat shields, hostages and psychological warfare is standard operating procedure under the Helltank Military Manual, Section III Chapter 4, Non-Combatants and their Uses. We believe that the use of this tactic is an essential strategy to more efficiently win wars for the Overlordship, and it has been employed in several cases, the most recent one being the skirmish against Castellumese Pirates off our south coast.

[Atomic Utopia]

I will read over this later to find how it can be exploited for justifying some horrible and unethical activities, preferably in contradiction to the original purpose of this proposal. So far I have come up with this.

1. The World Assembly defines the use of living shields as the act of an armed party utilizing unarmed individuals, be they volunteers or otherwise, to shield themselves in such a way as to in order to compel a strategic or tactical advantage by way of manipulating a third party’s obligation to respect the protected status of the hostages or perceived value of the hostages.

Unarmed. What a very interesting idea, unarmed individuals, shall we determine what constitutes unarmed? This seems a tad undefined right now, I could, if I felt awfully evil, round up some school children, give them pocket knives, and then march them out in front of my forces as a shield. They would be armed, but their primary effect would be as a human shield.

So in other words, I just have to give my human shields pocket knives or possibly even just rocks now. I would support this is the obvious creative interpretation is fixed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

quote="Separatist Peoples";p="25576023"]

1. The World Assembly defines the use of living shields as the act of an armed party utilizing unarmed individuals, be they volunteers or otherwise, to shield themselves in such a way as to in order to compel a strategic or tactical advantage by way of manipulating a third party’s obligation to respect the protected status of the hostages or perceived value of the hostages.

Unarmed. What a very interesting idea, unarmed individuals, shall we determine what constitutes unarmed? This seems a tad undefined right now, I could, if I felt awfully evil, round up some school children, give them pocket knives, and then march them out in front of my forces as a shield. They would be armed, but their primary effect would be as a human shield.

So in other words, I just have to give my human shields pocket knives or possibly even just rocks now. I would support this is the obvious creative interpretation is fixed.[/quote]
Parsons: Yes... when we were fighting the Cambigtans in the First Cambigtan War, they went at us with sharpened fruit and rocks. We had repeating rifles. The 'war' was over in three weeks. We took about 130 casualties from an army of 35,000. My father, the 1st Duke of Geneva, said it was a preposterous affair which was made only more terrible by "the razor of Death descending upon the youth of one of the great preserved cultures of the world". Do we call this host of 100,000 men with sharpened fruit an armed force?

Parsons: Sir Benjamin, when we express some sort of... trepidation... this is the sort of thing we worry of.

[Grays Harbor]

Parsons: Yes... when we were fighting the Cambigtans in the First Cambigtan War, they went at us with sharpened fruit and rocks. We had repeating rifles. The 'war' was over in three weeks. We took about 130 casualties from an army of 35,000. My father, the 1st Duke of Geneva, said it was a preposterous affair which was made only more terrible by "the razor of Death descending upon the youth of one of the great preserved cultures of the world". Do we call this host of 100,000 men with sharpened fruit an armed force?

Parsons: Sir Benjamin, when we express some sort of... trepidation... this is the sort of thing we worry of.

(Thank you for the history lesson, Captain Blackadder)

[Separatist Peoples]

I will read over this later to find how it can be exploited for justifying some horrible and unethical activities, preferably in contradiction to the original purpose of this proposal. So far I have come up with this.

1. The World Assembly defines the use of living shields as the act of an armed party utilizing unarmed individuals, be they volunteers or otherwise, to shield themselves in such a way as to in order to compel a strategic or tactical advantage by way of manipulating a third party’s obligation to respect the protected status of the hostages or perceived value of the hostages.

Unarmed. What a very interesting idea, unarmed individuals, shall we determine what constitutes unarmed? This seems a tad undefined right now, I could, if I felt awfully evil, round up some school children, give them pocket knives, and then march them out in front of my forces as a shield. They would be armed, but their primary effect would be as a human shield.

So in other words, I just have to give my human shields pocket knives or possibly even just rocks now. I would support this is the obvious creative interpretation is fixed.

"If you armed children to make them combatants, I fear you'd be violating the Assembly's ban on child soldiers."

quote="Separatist Peoples";p="25576023"]

1. The World Assembly defines the use of living shields as the act of an armed party utilizing unarmed individuals, be they volunteers or otherwise, to shield themselves in such a way as to in order to compel a strategic or tactical advantage by way of manipulating a third party’s obligation to respect the protected status of the hostages or perceived value of the hostages.

Unarmed. What a very interesting idea, unarmed individuals, shall we determine what constitutes unarmed? This seems a tad undefined right now, I could, if I felt awfully evil, round up some school children, give them pocket knives, and then march them out in front of my forces as a shield. They would be armed, but their primary effect would be as a human shield.

So in other words, I just have to give my human shields pocket knives or possibly even just rocks now. I would support this is the obvious creative interpretation is fixed.

Parsons: Yes... when we were fighting the Cambigtans in the First Cambigtan War, they went at us with sharpened fruit and rocks. We had repeating rifles. The 'war' was over in three weeks. We took about 130 casualties from an army of 35,000. My father, the 1st Duke of Geneva, said it was a preposterous affair which was made only more terrible by "the razor of Death descending upon the youth of one of the great preserved cultures of the world". Do we call this host of 100,000 men with sharpened fruit an armed force?

Parsons: Sir Benjamin, when we express some sort of... trepidation... this is the sort of thing we worry of.[/quote]

"By arming the individuals, even against their will, they would technically be combatants. Just because an enemy is deliberately issued a vastly inferior weapon (OOC: like the CSA issuing pikes to blacks and rifles to whites) doesn't generally make them not combatants.

"However, handing living shields pocket knives to be stored in the front pocket, folded, when your own troops are armed with repeating rifles and beyond does leave the shields as unarmed for all practical purposes, and I am positive the average judge trying such a case could make a reasonable distinction between armed and merely carrying a pocketknife, as how one carries and object and in what capacity it is used determine the difference between a tool and a weapon in a practical sense. To say nothing of the fact that a shield so armed could always drop the weapon if they are armed against their will.

"So, unless your enemy straps weapons into their shield's hands a la the Joker, in which case it isn't possible to make the distinction safely, there's really no reason that the specific application can't be left to a state's judicial branch to determine, through legal interpretation and applicable case law, how to determine what constitutes "unarmed" in a given situation."

[Separatist Peoples]

Beliazrael: The Overlordship cannot in good faith support this proposal. The use of civilians or other non-combatants as meat shields, hostages and psychological warfare is standard operating procedure under the Helltank Military Manual, Section III Chapter 4, Non-Combatants and their Uses. We believe that the use of this tactic is an essential strategy to more efficiently win wars for the Overlordship, and it has been employed in several cases, the most recent one being the skirmish against Castellumese Pirates off our south coast.

"I have no intention of stopping simply because a nation with little respect for human rights has found a niche for this disposable behavior."

[Helltank]

Beliazrael: Your comments on strapping weapons into the hands of hostages has been most enlightening. I will forward them to our Military Intelligence and Planning Division immediately. Meanwhile, we will be sure to vote against this resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Beliazrael: Your comments on strapping weapons into the hands of hostages has been most enlightening. I will forward them to our Military Intelligence and Planning Division immediately. Meanwhile, we will be sure to vote against this resolution.

"Arming your prisoners defeats te entire point if living shields. One uses them to make sure the enemy can't shoot. Arming them removes that onus, and bodies are terrible at absorbing the kind of jacketed round modern militaries use, which means they won't shield anybody from anything. Playing the Joker won't have an actual tactical benefit.

"As for your lack of support, I'm sure it will matter roughly as much as the pro-slavers' opinions mattered when the ban on slavery passed."

[Caracasus]

Whilst we feel that there may be potential loopholes within this proposal that would allow certain nations to commit such atrocities as strapping weaponry to their prisoners and using them as cannon-fodder and the like, this proposal closes up significantly more loopholes than it allows.

This closes loopholes in the resolution recently passed that would allow such nations to use humanitarian aid workers as human shields, and as such we support it fully.

We would suggest that the arguments against this resolution basically comprise of "If this legislation that closes said loophole is passed, we'll find a new loophole" to be a particularly weak argument against this legislation. As with any legislation, determined enough nations will be able to find some form of loophole - at present we imagine that poorly-armed and trained prisoner armies or similar needs examining - potentially in a new piece of legislation. The ability to find a minor loophole should not be considered grounds for not trying to pass resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Whilst we feel that there may be potential loopholes within this proposal that would allow certain nations to commit such atrocities as strapping weaponry to their prisoners and using them as cannon-fodder and the like, this proposal closes up significantly more loopholes than it allows.

This closes loopholes in the resolution recently passed that would allow such nations to use humanitarian aid workers as human shields, and as such we support it fully.

We would suggest that the arguments against this resolution basically comprise of "If this legislation that closes said loophole is passed, we'll find a new loophole" to be a particularly weak argument against this legislation. As with any legislation, determined enough nations will be able to find some form of loophole - at present we imagine that poorly-armed and trained prisoner armies or similar needs examining - potentially in a new piece of legislation. The ability to find a minor loophole should not be considered grounds for not trying to pass resolution.

"You support is appreciated. Forwhat it's worth, The "loophole" wherein one tapes weapons into their shields' hands to make them unable to drop them (but not unable to simply drop to the ground in surrender) does defeat the entire point of taking such hostages. By arming them, nothing actually stops your troops from returning fire, where unarmed individuals would be protected and force the troops to hold their fire. It's just a bad loophole, especially when most modern bullets are jacketed and will over penetrate an individual. Most creatures make awful, terribly bullet stoppers. That's why we invented body armor."

[Crumlark]

I feel the need to speak out against your phrasing in the first few lines, transitioning from armed and unarmed to combatant and noncombatant somewhere in the middle of your resolution, the latter of which is a broader term that was carefully defined by the WA for these kind of issues. There are such a thing as unarmed combatants and armed non-combatants (example for the latter: Civilian with a privately owned weapon, not engaging in combat)

[Separatist Peoples]

I feel the need to speak out against your phrasing in the first few lines, transitioning from armed and unarmed to combatant and noncombatant somewhere in the middle of your resolution, the latter of which is a broader term that was carefully defined by the WA for these kind of issues. There are such a thing as unarmed combatants and armed non-combatants (example for the latter: Civilian with a privately owned weapon, not engaging in combat)

"You are, of course, correct. I'll adjust that immediately."

[Caracasus]

Whilst we feel that there may be potential loopholes within this proposal that would allow certain nations to commit such atrocities as strapping weaponry to their prisoners and using them as cannon-fodder and the like, this proposal closes up significantly more loopholes than it allows.

This closes loopholes in the resolution recently passed that would allow such nations to use humanitarian aid workers as human shields, and as such we support it fully.

We would suggest that the arguments against this resolution basically comprise of "If this legislation that closes said loophole is passed, we'll find a new loophole" to be a particularly weak argument against this legislation. As with any legislation, determined enough nations will be able to find some form of loophole - at present we imagine that poorly-armed and trained prisoner armies or similar needs examining - potentially in a new piece of legislation. The ability to find a minor loophole should not be considered grounds for not trying to pass resolution.

"You support is appreciated. Forwhat it's worth, The "loophole" wherein one tapes weapons into their shields' hands to make them unable to drop them (but not unable to simply drop to the ground in surrender) does defeat the entire point of taking such hostages. By arming them, nothing actually stops your troops from returning fire, where unarmed individuals would be protected and force the troops to hold their fire. It's just a bad loophole, especially when most modern bullets are jacketed and will over penetrate an individual. Most creatures make awful, terribly bullet stoppers. That's why we invented body armor."

Indeed. We were not commenting on the quality of the loophole as such, merely that it exists as a potential. Perhaps there might be something under cruel and unusual punishment that would restrict nations from arming prisoners with poor quality weaponry and throwing them in the direction of the enemy.

[Helltank]

Beliazrael: I suppose our military forces will merely have to take the risk of getting fired on by terrified prisoners of war, tortured half to death, armed with rusty barely-functioning guns that each have one bullet in them.

[Separatist Peoples]

Beliazrael: I suppose our military forces will merely have to take the risk of getting fired on by terrified prisoners of war, tortured half to death, armed with rusty barely-functioning guns that each have one bullet in them.

"That's in direct violation of two existing WA laws already. Nonetheless, the point is that by arming the shields, one loses any benefit to using them, because the unarmed status is what keeps soldiers of WA states from firing in the first place.

"Then again, since you're clearly not interested in obeying WA law, why bother finding a loophole? Or even debating a law that you won't obey. Or being a part of the WA? Since this delegation doesn't consider the opinions of oathbreakers, your concerns, I'm afraid, fall on deaf ears."

[Caracasus]

Beliazrael: I suppose our military forces will merely have to take the risk of getting fired on by terrified prisoners of war, tortured half to death, armed with rusty barely-functioning guns that each have one bullet in them.

We are sorry, but firstly what risk would a group of poorly armed POW's pose to your military? And how would this be legal at all under current legislation?

To the best of our knowledge ambassador, nations are decidedly not allowed to arm POW's as cannon fodder. This legislation regards the use of civilians and other neutral groups (i.e. non military people and actors such as humanitarian aid groups and hostages) as shields for military action.

From the current legislation on prisoners of war [i]Resolution #18, Prisoners of war accord viewtopic.php?p=330#p330)

PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, coercion, medical procedures not required to ensure such person's health, killed (including the killing of unapprehended hostile troops who have surrendered), and other such violations of human rights
a) Force may be used only in cases where the person in question is resisting apprehension, following reasonable warnings that such force is to be used. Detaining nation's forces are further permitted to search and remove any weapons and other contraband
b) PoWs may be questioned to establish their name, rank, number (be it regimental, unit, service or commissioning), and pertinent medical and religious information not of military importance. Such information is to be freely given by PoWs
c) Detaining nations are permitted to use PoWs as a labour force. Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the detaining nation's war aims. Detaining nations may not use commissioned PoWs for manual labour. Internees are not to be used as a labour force without their consent

[Helltank]

Beliazrael: War aims? You must have misunderstood me, delegate. If some POWs were to accidentally be freed in the chaos of combat, and if enemy forces were to falter upon seeing them... well, that can hardly be blamed on anyone, least of all us.