NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Thyerata wrote:OOC: I'm having trouble with Article II. Assuming you're following RL public international law in this resolution, the "I was following orders" defence either doesn't exist, or is severely restricted. If that were true - and I'd need to check my books when I go back to university next week - then Article II is redundant

OOC: you're not correct. The Nuremburg defense may fly in Nationstates because some nations will consider that acceptable as a defense. Certainly, there is nothing that bans it as a defense, currently. I've limited it. Similarly, I've bolstered it in a select few circumstances, so the opposite approach, that it is never a good defense, isn't always true.

Unlike Real World international law, we assume there is no common law or customary law when writing WA resolutions. If it isn't written into statute, then its the wild west.

OOC: Thyerata does follow RL public international law, meaning that the Nuremberg defence would not work. Consequently Article II is incompatible with domestic law.

IC: it is our view that the defence of "I was just following orders" does not exist in international law. In any event Thytian law does not recognise it. Consequently, as Article II seems to envisage such a defence, we are opposed to this proposal.

Thyerata wrote:
OOC: Thyerata does follow RL public international law, meaning that the Nuremberg defence would not work. Consequently Article II is incompatible with domestic law.

OOC: National law is not a defense to not comply with international law, and it isn't a justification to prevent drafting on a topic. Vote against.

IC: it is our view that the defence of "I was just following orders" does not exist in international law. In any event Thytian law does not recognise it. Consequently, as Article II seems to envisage such a defence, we are opposed to this proposal.

"If you are unwilling to comply with WA law, you and I have little to discuss. Until then, your vote against is noted."

lolwut, GA 2.

*<notes that the definition of "commander" used in Article 1.1 would cover not only officers in the standard line of command but also political commissars or religious inquisitors>*

"Good. We can, and will, support this."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

"All edits made to bring this up to date."

OOC: I know I'm good, but am I that good?

“Clause I-4 seems unusually harsh for a WA-mandated punishment, where said infraction could have happened years ago or was of a very trivial nature.”

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause I-4 seems unusually harsh for a WA-mandated punishment, where said infraction could have happened years ago or was of a very trivial nature.”

"Clause four is not punitive. Clause four is a disincentive so nations cant stack up the same trivial punishments on their one general who is happy to get his hands dirty. It prevents abuse, even if its harsh. Frankly, if you're found guilty of a war crime, you were unlikely to retain command anyway."

"The FII supports this proposal and will vote for this should it go to vote."

I am going to say this diplomatically: I am against your proposal and will not support it in any way. Your suggestions will only lead to the eventual downfall of the affected nations. Try again.

Tuummaarraa wrote:I am going to say this diplomatically: I am against your proposal and will not support it in any way. Your suggestions will only lead to the eventual downfall of the affected nations. Try again.

"No. Your vote against is noted, though."

OOC: Bump

I have no real objections.

I support

OOC: Bump

"Well written, sensible legislation... we will vote for if this ever comes to vote in this version, and recommend the authoring nation to submit this version for consideration."

“I have no objections. Nothing in here looks as though it could pose any problems at vote, nor requires more rethinking.”

OOC
Just one suggestion.
Maybe this could be extended to cover responsibility not only for "armed forces" as such -- which some national governments might argue means only their own "regular" forces -- but also, explicitly, responsibility for all other military or paramilitary groups working for (or, at least, condoned by) those nations as well? Otherwise some member nations might "overlook" or even [however covertly] order atrocities carried out by -- for example -- armed 'police' units, privateers, 'private military contractors' (and other mercenaries not organised as an integral part of the nation's regular forces), non-governmental 'militias' or 'volunteer' groups of various kinds (as seen in RL, for example, in the atrocities that a gang organised from among a Serbian football team's supporters carried out in Bosnia), and so on...
If you decide not to make this change then I'll have to search my old notes: I started work on drafting for a proposal requiring member nations to hold any such groups working on their behalf to the same standards of operational behaviour as they do their own armed forces, with a named officer or official in that nation's employ legally responsible for this in each case, but suspect that that draft has long since been lost.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Just one suggestion.
Maybe this could be extended to cover responsibility not only for "armed forces" as such -- which some national governments might argue means only their own "regular" forces -- but also, explicitly, responsibility for all other military or paramilitary groups working for (or, at least, condoned by) those nations as well? Otherwise some member nations might "overlook" or even [however covertly] order atrocities carried out by -- for example -- armed 'police' units, privateers, 'private military contractors' (and other mercenaries not organised as an integral part of the nation's regular forces), non-governmental 'militias' or 'volunteer' groups of various kinds (as seen in RL, for example, in the atrocities that a gang organised from among a Serbian football team's supporters carried out in Bosnia), and so on...
If you decide not to make this change then I'll have to search my old notes: I started work on drafting for a proposal requiring member nations to hold any such groups working on their behalf to the same standards of operational behaviour as they do their own armed forces, with a named officer or official in that nation's employ legally responsible for this in each case, but suspect that that draft has long since been lost.

"I clarified a bit to include irregular forces, but I drew the line at decentralized mobs. Where there isn't a command element, command responsibility isn't really applicable."

OOC
Okay, thanks.

OOC: Bump

IC: The young woman on the Araraukarian seat frowns as she tries to decipher some handwritten notes. "Um, the clause four says you need to sack commanders after a military court has decided they've done what the proposal says needs to be criminalized, but isn't that a loophole for nations that don't want to obey, as all they'd need to do was to not do the military court bit? Like, I get that you want to separate the whole "yes they did wrong" from "and this is their punishment for the wrongdoing" parts, but wouldn't the "yes they did wrong" work through any kind of court, not just military one? Especially if you've got no military and thus no military court, but you got these military-like forces, like private armies or something, that do the dirty work normally done by militaries."

OOC: In case the intern is being unclear, rather than specifically require a court martial to decide the commander has broken the proposal's commandments, couldn't you just require a legal procedure of any kind to determine it, separate from criminal punishment?

OOC: Despite reading previous replies, I'm yet to understand on who falls the responsibility in a case of a Prime Minister/President gives the order to commit war crimes. On the civilian politican, or on the Chief Commamder who relied it forward?

Also, if I may borrow from a real life case, here in the IDF we have a thing called "Completely illegal order", "ilegal order" and "order".

The first one is an order to which a soldier is expected to refuse to follow it and actively stop it, like shooting a baby or rape or anything similar, because any decent human being will never do those acts. While I'm aware that there is a clause which touches this exact issue, I'm afraid that trying to define when is it s completely ilegal order will only cause problems with either soldiers committing horrible crimes or just refusing non completely ilegal orders.

"Full support."

Visionary Union wrote:OOC: Despite reading previous replies, I'm yet to understand on who falls the responsibility in a case of a Prime Minister/President gives the order to commit war crimes. On the civilian politican, or on the Chief Commamder who relied it forward?

OOC: both. Though, the civilian commander doesn't have a real command to lose, so its theoretically possible such a leader could be permitted office after such a violation. However, I think it so unlikely that a nation would permit a convicted war criminal to hold office multiple times. Not much for it though.

Also, if I may borrow from a real life case, here in the IDF we have a thing called "Completely illegal order", "ilegal order" and "order".

That is silly. An order is legal or it is not.

The first one is an order to which a soldier is expected to refuse to follow it and actively stop it, like shooting a baby or rape or anything similar, because any decent human being will never do those acts. While I'm aware that there is a clause which touches this exact issue, I'm afraid that trying to define when is it s completely ilegal order will only cause problems with either soldiers committing horrible crimes or just refusing non completely ilegal orders.

OOC: Its quite simple. I've done it. If the order violates the law in it's necessary execution, it is not a legal order. If the order does not violate the law, it isn't an illegal order. An order that is ambiguously illegal is really only a problem if the illegal interpretation is executed. It is a very simple dichotomy.

Karteria wrote:"Full support."

"Your support is appreciated, ambassador."