[DEFEATED] Mercantile Prizes of War

[Separatist Peoples]

Mercantile Prizes of War

Human Rights | Mild

---

Applauding the World Assembly for its constant improvements on wartime legislation,

Concerned that there yet exists grey areas in the current laws,

Noting that wartime commerce is often a popular target of opportunity and that crews of merchant craft are often subject to combat conditions regardless of their civilian status,

Believing this worthy of international attention,

1. The General Assembly defines mercantile prizes as commercial cargo or transport vessels, regardless of the medium which they traverse, that carry commercial goods that, but for the outbreak of hostilities, would be legal vessels engaged in lawful commerce.

2. It shall be lawful for member states to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents in their territory if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized.

3. Member states must offer belligerent mercantile prizes that have lawfully entered their territory prior to the outbreak of hostilities leave to return to allied or neutral territory before capture. Mercantile prizes that are given appropriate time to reach the aforementioned territory, yet fail to comply are no longer afforded this protection.

4. Member states may confiscate vessels and cargo lawfully seized as a mercantile prize of war, provided the cargo is commercial and not bound for delivery to a specific individual.

a. Member states may not confiscate cargo bound for delivery to a specific individual, such as mail or personal items not intended for commercial sale at a later point, but may detain them for return to the nation of origin at the conclusion of hostilities.

b. Member states are responsible for detained goods, and will immediately tender a receipt upon detention of goods, including a guarantee of compensation for lost or damaged goods.

5. Member states may not consider the crew of such a vessel to be themselves prizes of war. Crews are entitled to the same rights and protections as Prisoners of War upon their capture or surrender, as defined by international law, and may not be harmed except where their actions make them lawful combatants.

6. Member states must consider actions or orders contrary to these provisions to be unlawful and a war crime, and shall prosecute offenders accordingly.

7. Nothing in this resolution limits the ability of authorities to detain vessels or crews without seizing the vessel or its cargo as a prize of war, pursuant to relevant international law.

"I hope this is viewed as a reasonable balance between territorial sovereignty and the need to protect innocents."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Member states are allowed to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized.

Mercantile prizes that lawfully enter the territory of a member state prior to hostilities that are caught within enemy territory at the outbreak of hostilities shall not be captured without first being given leave to return to friendly or neutral territory. Upon entering friendly or neutral territory, mercantile prizes are no longer afforded this protection.

Nations ought have the right to confiscate any weapons or materials which are transversing their jurisdiction at any time given that doing so is conducive to their national defence or foreign policy so long as that is in accordance with such laws mandated by their legislatures.

[Separatist Peoples]

Member states are allowed to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized.

Mercantile prizes that lawfully enter the territory of a member state prior to hostilities that are caught within enemy territory at the outbreak of hostilities shall not be captured without first being given leave to return to friendly or neutral territory. Upon entering friendly or neutral territory, mercantile prizes are no longer afforded this protection.

Nations ought have the right to confiscate any weapons or materials which are transversing their jurisdiction at any time given that doing so is conducive to their national defence or foreign policy so long as that is in accordance with such laws mandated by their legislatures.

"Targets without the opportunity to avoid contested area in the first place should be given the opportunity to avoid conflict. Your opposition is noted and ignored."

OOC: This is the status quo of the Real World, you realize?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Member states are allowed to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized.

Mercantile prizes that lawfully enter the territory of a member state prior to hostilities that are caught within enemy territory at the outbreak of hostilities shall not be captured without first being given leave to return to friendly or neutral territory. Upon entering friendly or neutral territory, mercantile prizes are no longer afforded this protection.

Nations ought have the right to confiscate any weapons or materials which are transversing their jurisdiction at any time given that doing so is conducive to their national defence or foreign policy so long as that is in accordance with such laws mandated by their legislatures.

"Targets without the opportunity to avoid contested area in the first place should be given the opportunity to avoid conflict. Your opposition is noted and ignored."

Targets who are in areas in which a war is going to be declared ought read the news, check the betting markets, and due to the availability of such data to predict or inform of possibilities of warfare, already consented into the risks.

OOC: This is the status quo of the Real World, you realize?

OOC: Shortly before the German declaration of war on Portugal in 1916, Portugal seized a number of German transports at British request. This would stop that from happening.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Defines mercantile prizes as commercial cargo or transport vessels, regardless of the medium through which they traverse, that carry commercial goods, as opposed to those products owned by individuals, that, but for the outbreak of hostilities, would be legal vessels engaged in lawful commerce.

"I find this definition rather unclear. I assume the second part is meant to refer to the cargo carried on the vessels referenced in the first?"

OOC: This is the status quo of the Real World, you realize?

OOC: Shortly before the German declaration of war on Portugal in 1916, Portugal seized a number of German transports at British request. This would stop that from happening.

OOC: Not if they were government owned- this would only protect private vessels if I understand it correctly.

[Separatist Peoples]

Targets who are in areas in which a war is going to be declared ought read the news, check the betting markets, and due to the availability of such data to predict or inform of possibilities of warfare, already consented into the risks.

"That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say, ambassador, and can I just say that I look forward to debating wartime policy with you like I look forward to a fucking root canal. Not every craft has communication methods capable of keeping in constant regular updates with the rest of the world. That status can change over the course of an hour, giving operators of commercial craft no opportunity to prevent the total loss of their craft, their cargo, and their livelihood. That is not fair, nor acceptable, and you bloody well know it. Your preference for a high seas on par with the Muppet's version of Treasure Island is not viewed as the universal ideal."

OOC: Shortly before the German declaration of war on Portugal in 1916, Portugal seized a number of German transports at British request. This would stop that from happening.

OOC: I'm not familiar with the details. Troop transports? Military transports? Refrigerated fishing boats carrying bobbleheads? Lack of context makes this claim entirely pointless. Such as it is, I don't see anything wrong with that being illegal. This is not very different than current modern standards. In fact, it is considerably more lax than modern standards, allowing for far greater seizure than you are likely to see in any modern Real World conflict.

[Separatist Peoples]

Defines mercantile prizes as commercial cargo or transport vessels, regardless of the medium through which they traverse, that carry commercial goods, as opposed to those products owned by individuals, that, but for the outbreak of hostilities, would be legal vessels engaged in lawful commerce.

"I find this definition rather unclear. I assume the second part is meant to refer to the cargo carried on the vessels referenced in the first?"

"It makes the distinction between private items being transported, such as mail and personal affects, and commercial cargo, like textiles, ore, or bobblehead dolls. And yes, the second part refers to the cargo carried on the vessels in the first part of the definition."

[Sciongrad]

"I'm not prepared to offer any substantive feedback as I've only given the draft a cursory read, but there are some grammar errors. For example:

The General Assembly hereby: [...] Member states are allowed to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized.

This does not make sense grammatically. If you use 'hereby,' every clause must begin with an operative verb. Other than that, Sciongrad offers tentative support and agrees fundamentally with the principles behind the draft."

[Wallenburg]

"The Wallenburgian delegation would love to repeat its traditional role of defending the rights of aggressors and bellicose states, but we are awfully busy. We shall get to this later."

OOC: A quick read over this proposal leads me to believe I will ultimately support this.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

I notice some ambiguity as to which member states have the right to take prizes . Belligerent only means a nation engaged in war, with no regard to which state they are at war with. A nation could reasonably interpret this as establishing the right to take prizes from nations they are not at war with, provided the nation is a war with a third party.

I also have concerns about how this will affect other resolutions. (Numbers #6 and #317 come to mind) Though I have not looked in detail.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I look forward to debating wartime policy with you like I look forward to a fucking root canal.

We have a very simple policy on the topic: don't have one. Nations ought be able to do whatever is necessary to preserve their own autonomy and their own existence.

Not every craft has communication methods capable of keeping in constant regular updates with the rest of the world. That status can change over the course of an hour, giving operators of commercial craft no opportunity to prevent the total loss of their craft, their cargo, and their livelihood. That is not fair, nor acceptable, and you bloody well know it. Your preference for a high seas on par with the Muppet's version of Treasure Island is not viewed as the universal ideal."

It is fantastically fair. The reason why openly traded stock-issuing companies exist is due to mercantile trade over the high seas. The reason why insurance contracts became commonplace is due to that trade's risks. In the run-up to war, tensions exist. So far as those tensions exist, those crews which choose to sail into waters which are likely to become a war zone are also those crews which accept the risk of that happening. Hazard pay exists. Insurance exists. Betting markets exist. Risks can be and are hedged. Next, you'll be telling us that people who bought assets in financial markets did not consent into the risks that their assets might devalue.

OOC: I'm not familiar with the details. Troop transports? Military transports? Refrigerated fishing boats carrying bobbleheads? Lack of context makes this claim entirely pointless. Such as it is, I don't see anything wrong with that being illegal. This is not very different than current modern standards. In fact, it is considerably more lax than modern standards, allowing for far greater seizure than you are likely to see in any modern Real World conflict.

February 23: Following a British request, Portugal interns 36 German and Austro-Hungarian ships in Lisbon.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

OOC: I'm not familiar with the details. Troop transports? Military transports? Refrigerated fishing boats carrying bobbleheads? Lack of context makes this claim entirely pointless. Such as it is, I don't see anything wrong with that being illegal. This is not very different than current modern standards. In fact, it is considerably more lax than modern standards, allowing for far greater seizure than you are likely to see in any modern Real World conflict.

February 23: Following a British request, Portugal interns 36 German and Austro-Hungarian ships in Lisbon.

OOC: Googling "Portuguese Seizure February 23 1914" and taking the top result shows that the vessels in question were merchantmen, and that that was prior to any deceleration of war between Germany and Portugal so that... Would be outside the scope of this proposals current wording if I'm not mistaken. This does only apply once war has been declared or the shooting has started after all. Whichever comes first...

Edit- Result in question: https://books.google.com/books?id=rmI9A ... 14&f=false

[Imperium Anglorum]

February 23: Following a British request, Portugal interns 36 German and Austro-Hungarian ships in Lisbon.

OOC: Googling "Portuguese Seizure February 23 1914" and taking the top result shows that the vessels in question were merchantmen, and that that was prior to any declaration of war between Germany and Portugal so that... Would be outside the scope of this proposals current wording if I'm not mistaken. This does only apply once war has been declared or the shooting has started after all. Whichever comes first...

OOC: Oh! Whoops! I forgot about including the source. It was in 1916. However it is, doing so would be illegal given that the second clause is 'Member states are allowed to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized'. Unless you want to say that interning is different than prizes. If so, I have no problem with that. We will simply start interning ships instead of seizing them.

[Bears Armed]

[box]Mercantile prizes that lawfully enter the territory of a member state prior to hostilities that are caught within enemy territory at the outbreak of hostilities shall not be captured without first being given leave to return to friendly or neutral territory.

OOC: That goes against RL precedent. During WW2 Mussolini declared war on the Allies, in the apparent presumption that they were about to collapse so that quick action was necessary if he was to have a voice in the peace treaties, without taking any steps to get Italian merchantmen out of Allied ports first... and those ships were seized, and their crews interned.

Unless you want to say that interning is different than prizes. If so, I have no problem with that. We will simply start interning ships instead of seizing them.

OOC: The difference might be that if you "seize" ships then you can legally use them yourself, but if they're only "interned" then probably you can't do so. I'm not sure how the 'Right of Angary' would apply in the latter case, though...

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Googling "Portuguese Seizure February 23 1914" and taking the top result shows that the vessels in question were merchantmen, and that that was prior to any declaration of war between Germany and Portugal so that... Would be outside the scope of this proposals current wording if I'm not mistaken. This does only apply once war has been declared or the shooting has started after all. Whichever comes first...

OOC: Oh! Whoops! I forgot about including the source. It was in 1916. However it is, doing so would be illegal given that the second clause is 'Member states are allowed to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized'. Unless you want to say that interning is different than prizes. If so, I have no problem with that. We will simply start interning ships instead of seizing them.

OOC: Interning is totally different. Interning doesn't involve taking the cargo and ships as loot. You can detain any ship, aircraft, or spaceship that enters your territory as you see fit. You can't take their shit except in specific circumstances. I'm glad we worked out that difference, because the two are distinctly different concepts, and that would have gotten confusing.

[Araraukar]

You can detain any ship, aircraft, or spaceship that enters your territory as you see fit. You can't take their shit except in specific circumstances.

OOC: So, you know that war will break out soon. You detain the vessels until after war has been declared and then you can take their shit? Sounds "fair".

[Separatist Peoples]

You can detain any ship, aircraft, or spaceship that enters your territory as you see fit. You can't take their shit except in specific circumstances.

OOC: So, you know that war will break out soon. You detain the vessels until after war has been declared and then you can take their shit? Sounds "fair".

OOC: that sounds like a pretty poor faith interpretation, considering, to be eligible to seize a prize of war, one the ship must be otherwise legal. One doesn't generally detain lawful craft.

[Araraukar]

OOC: that sounds like a pretty poor faith interpretation, considering, to be eligible to seize a prize of war, one the ship must be otherwise legal. One doesn't generally detain lawful craft.

OOC: But you said "You can detain any ship, aircraft, or spaceship that enters your territory as you see fit."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: that sounds like a pretty poor faith interpretation, considering, to be eligible to seize a prize of war, one the ship must be otherwise legal. One doesn't generally detain lawful craft.

OOC: But you said "You can detain any ship, aircraft, or spaceship that enters your territory as you see fit."

OOC: The ITSC requires that you have a nonarbitrary reason to do so, which is basically going to require a preexisting regulation.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: bump

[Whovian Tardisia]

Member states shall consider actions or orders contrary to these provisions a war crime and shall prosecute the offenders accordingly.

Does this mean that pirates, independent of any military, would be considered war criminals as opposed to civilian criminals?

[Separatist Peoples]

Member states shall consider actions or orders contrary to these provisions a war crime and shall prosecute the offenders accordingly.

Does this mean that pirates, independent of any military, would be considered war criminals as opposed to civilian criminals?

"Piracy is covered elsewhere, ambassador."

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Does this mean that pirates, independent of any military, would be considered war criminals as opposed to civilian criminals?

"Piracy is covered elsewhere, ambassador."

"Looking at GA 20, it appears to be silent on whether or not pirates are to be considered civil criminals or war criminals. 8a may lean towards a civilian meaning though."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Piracy is covered elsewhere, ambassador."

"Looking at GA 20, it appears to be silent on whether or not pirates are to be considered civil criminals or war criminals. 8a may lean towards a civilian meaning though."

"Possibly. This deals solely with member states and their respective actors, though. Pirates are, by definition, not state actors, or they would be privateers, and are therefore left solely to Suppression of International Piracy."

[Whovian Tardisia]

This legislation would apply to privateers, but not pirates then. That makes sense.

It was brought up earlier that some nations may become elements of chaos by using a loophole in this clause:

Member states are allowed to seize mercantile prizes belonging to belligerents if, and only if, hostilities have already commenced prior to the mercantile prize being seized.

The loophole being that, due to wording, the nation seizing the mercantile prize does not necessarily have to be fighting the belligerent, the belligerent simply has to exist. Perhaps changing "belligerents" to "enemy belligerents" would close this loophole.