NationStates

Christian Democrats wrote:We fail to see how this proposal would be enforceable.

"You're waging an unjust war. You're bad." Okay. Whatever.

Now, if this proposal imposed some sort of mandate on other WA member states -- e.g., to cease trade with violators and to freeze the financial assets of violators -- it would have teeth. It would be a proposal that actually proposes doing something.

(OOC: The Administrative Compliance Act takes care of sanctions for breaking any GA proposal.)

Christian Democrats wrote:We fail to see how this proposal would be enforceable.

OOC: They keep telling me that the compliance committee exists to enforce resolutions... There's also the whole good faith requirement, too.

"The Soviet Union and the members of the Common Security Agreement, Armenia and Georgia, fully support this resolution."

Sofia Kerman rises. "There's a joke in there somewhere about what precisely constitutes "competent", but Jebslund supports this proposal, provided situations in which a state is refusing to take action against a non-state actors or actors engaged in the capture or trade of citizens of member states into slavery or other heinous crimes against the people of member states are considered just cause for war."

"Kyrgwalaey is unwilling to support this draft, consistently stating that '2c is subjective and requires a universal measurement to follow'."

Is this close to ready for submission?

United Massachusetts wrote:Is this close to ready for submission?

OOC: Are mercenaries "non-state actors"?

Are they actors which are not the state?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Are they actors which are not the state?

OOC: Even when hired by the state?

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Are they actors which are not the state?

OOC: Even when hired by the state?

OOC: Hey, that general who hired them was acting without the approval of the state. The fact that we're at war and can't afford to change horses midstream is the only reason he conveniently still has a job, and, no, you may not see his pay stubs.

Jebslund wrote:OOC: Hey, that general who hired them was acting without the approval of the state. The fact that we're at war and can't afford to change horses midstream is the only reason he conveniently still has a job, and, no, you may not see his pay stubs.

OOC: Whoever said anything about generals? I'm not talking about a nation's armed forces. I'm talking about the "non-state actors" clause and whether mercenaries hired by the state (not a general) count as such. Also, what the hell are you talking about?

Araraukar wrote:

Jebslund wrote:OOC: Hey, that general who hired them was acting without the approval of the state. The fact that we're at war and can't afford to change horses midstream is the only reason he conveniently still has a job, and, no, you may not see his pay stubs.

OOC: Whoever said anything about generals? I'm not talking about a nation's armed forces. I'm talking about the "non-state actors" clause and whether mercenaries hired by the state (not a general) count as such. Also, what the hell are you talking about?

OOC: Plausible deniability. The general in my example is arguably a state actor hiring the mercs on behalf of the state, but said hiring is being denied as the actions of a rogue individual acting without the permission or knowledge of the state. It was a serious joke.

So perhaps sometimes mercenaries are and are not, depending on the situation.

Jebslund wrote:OOC: Plausible deniability. The general in my example is arguably a state actor hiring the mercs on behalf of the state, but said hiring is being denied as the actions of a rogue individual acting without the permission or knowledge of the state.

OOC: This is pretty much exactly why I want UM to explain - not in the proposal, but just as a forum post - exactly what he means. Because in your example, they probably wouldn't count. I'm asking about the situation when they've been literally hired by the state, not some go-between guy.

It was a serious joke.

It was marked OOC and didn't have a smilie, so that was a bit hard to judge.

Yes, yes. UM will explain. He's busy yelling at fascists rn.

United Massachusetts wrote:Yes, yes. UM will explain. He's busy yelling at fascists rn.

OOC: Yell at them for me too.

Araraukar wrote:

Jebslund wrote:OOC: Plausible deniability. The general in my example is arguably a state actor hiring the mercs on behalf of the state, but said hiring is being denied as the actions of a rogue individual acting without the permission or knowledge of the state.

OOC: This is pretty much exactly why I want UM to explain - not in the proposal, but just as a forum post - exactly what he means. Because in your example, they probably wouldn't count. I'm asking about the situation when they've been literally hired by the state, not some go-between guy.

It was a serious joke.

It was marked OOC and didn't have a smilie, so that was a bit hard to judge. :P

OOC: Gentle reminder that the military is part of the state and the part most likely to be doing said literal hiring. "Some go-between guy" would be if the state had some random civilian do the hiring.

Utter rubbish. The rules of war are no good and so is this. I do not support this idea.

Jebslund wrote:OOC: Gentle reminder that the military is part of the state and the part most likely to be doing said literal hiring. "Some go-between guy" would be if the state had some random civilian do the hiring.

OOC: As an example, Araraukar has no military. None. It has some parts of law enforcement that may have "military-grade" gear, but they are law enforcement, not military, and wouldn't be involved in anything beyond the nation's borders.

And having a military still wouldn't have anything to do with my question if the military itself or any of its personnel were not involved in the hiring of the mercenaries.

...I may have also read too much Schlock recently, but that doesn't mean I wasn't seriously asking this question...

So, I'm fine with excluding mercenary forces from the definition of "non-state actor."

I just have to figure out how to work that out in the definition!

Namaste,

The Most Sacred Kingdom, being committed to supporting world peace, order, and stability, hereby supports this Draft.

Vrama wrote:Namaste,

The Most Sacred Kingdom, being committed to supporting world peace, order, and stability, hereby supports this Draft.

We knew you would. Imperium Anglorum has a long history of supporting world peace, and we're glad to see its crown dominions are in agreement.

Araraukar wrote:

Jebslund wrote:OOC: Gentle reminder that the military is part of the state and the part most likely to be doing said literal hiring. "Some go-between guy" would be if the state had some random civilian do the hiring.

OOC: As an example, Araraukar has no military. None. It has some parts of law enforcement that may have "military-grade" gear, but they are law enforcement, not military, and wouldn't be involved in anything beyond the nation's borders.

And having a military still wouldn't have anything to do with my question if the military itself or any of its personnel were not involved in the hiring of the mercenaries.

...I may have also read too much Schlock recently, but that doesn't mean I wasn't seriously asking this question...

OOC: And the police are *also* part of the state. That said, I was responding to your assertion that my scenario was not one of the state literally hiring the mercs.

“Clause 3 beginning with a minuscule and having the second word capitalised looks horrible; I suggest appending the ‘and’ elsewhere.”

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 3 beginning with a minuscule and having the second word capitalised looks horrible; I suggest appending the ‘and’ elsewhere.”

It does not look horrible. I think it looks quite fine, thank you very much!

(Will fix)