[DEFEATED] Preventing Unjust Warfare

[Bears Armed]

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal. We echo the sentiment of the ambassador from Araraukar that certain clauses in this proposal could be ignored at best and abused at worst. In addition, our nation is often threatened by space pirates from the asteroids surrounding our planets. If the WA unilaterally rules our cause unjust, why must we stop defending ourselves?"

You're already specifically authorized (and urged) by the WA to act against pirates (see GA Resolution #20).

[Kenmoria]

“For 2aiii, you haven’t specified which ‘national authority’ it is to which you are referring, so this could be a completely uninvolved country that happens to like the idea of destroying a non-state actor.”

[Greater Cesnica]

IC: Slick McCooley takes the microphone: "This proposition clearly has merit, and is well-intentioned. However, I do not believe this resolution can be fully binding, as there are regions and nations within this esteemed Assembly that have no regard for international laws and the sovereignty of other regions and nations. I abstain on presenting a position on this draft at this time."

OOC: Invader regions will probably vote against this. Personally? If a few clauses are clarified further I will vote for this if it reaches quorum.

[Kenmoria]

IC: Slick McCooley takes the microphone: "This proposition clearly has merit, and is well-intentioned. However, I do not believe this resolution can be fully binding, as there are regions and nations within this esteemed Assembly that have no regard for international laws and the sovereignty of other regions and nations. I abstain on presenting a position on this draft at this time."

OOC: Invader regions will probably vote against this. Personally? If a few clauses are clarified further I will vote for this if it reaches quorum.

“If this does pass, then any non compliant nations will receive fines according to the Administrative Compliance Act until they reach a state of agreement with World Assembly law.”

(OOC: Regions don’t exist as far as the GA is concerned; they are a completely different mechanic.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

IC: Slick McCooley takes the microphone: "This proposition clearly has merit, and is well-intentioned. However, I do not believe this resolution can be fully binding, as there are regions and nations within this esteemed Assembly that have no regard for international laws and the sovereignty of other regions and nations. I abstain on presenting a position on this draft at this time."

OOC: Invader regions will probably vote against this. Personally? If a few clauses are clarified further I will vote for this if it reaches quorum.

OOC: Remember that the R/D game is separate from the General Assembly. We don't concern ourselves with game regions, mention of which formally in a resolution constitutes Metagaming.

[Greater Cesnica]

IC: Slick McCooley takes the microphone: "This proposition clearly has merit, and is well-intentioned. However, I do not believe this resolution can be fully binding, as there are regions and nations within this esteemed Assembly that have no regard for international laws and the sovereignty of other regions and nations. I abstain on presenting a position on this draft at this time."

OOC: Invader regions will probably vote against this. Personally? If a few clauses are clarified further I will vote for this if it reaches quorum.

“If this does pass, then any non compliant nations will receive fines according to the Administrative Compliance Act until they reach a state of agreement with World Assembly law.”

(OOC: Regions don’t exist as far as the GA is concerned; they are a completely different mechanic.)

IC: Slick McCooley takes the microphone: "This proposition clearly has merit, and is well-intentioned. However, I do not believe this resolution can be fully binding, as there are regions and nations within this esteemed Assembly that have no regard for international laws and the sovereignty of other regions and nations. I abstain on presenting a position on this draft at this time."

OOC: Invader regions will probably vote against this. Personally? If a few clauses are clarified further I will vote for this if it reaches quorum.

OOC: Remember that the R/D game is separate from the General Assembly. We don't concern ourselves with game regions, mention of which formally in a resolution constitutes Metagaming.

Well shit I'm still in my SC mindset lol

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: It really doesn't at all justify either of those cases, especially not the latter. I'm willing to consider adding a clause requiring member nations to have intelligence backing their claims, as I could see how the US could get away with Iraq by yelling about WMDs. But let's be honest, any review panel established would have to consider false intelligence.

OOC: 2.a.iv. is part of the problem. Just make a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with another nation about taking down and dividing a third nation or something similar, and you can do whatever you want.

Key word -- extant. In short, the 2.a.iv. only applies to treaties signed before the passage of the resolution, not after. This makes sense; the World Assembly shouldn't require nations to violate existing treaty law, but almost certainly should prevent future treaties akin to Molotov-Ribbentrop.

Also, exactly what good is any review panel going to be, except afterwards? Because once you have an active war going on, if one side doesn't want peace (especially if the war is going their way), it's not like the WA going "Bad war! Stop!" is actually going to stop the other side from defending itself.

"It's worth noting that under the current review mechanism, which is still awaiting Sep's input, should he choose to provide it, potential conflicts are to be submitted to the board beforehand, excepting exceptional circumstances. Regardless, however, should a member nation violate the terms of this agreement, they will be met with the force of the rather innovative Administrative Compliance Act. It is hard to wage a war whilst paying fines that could 'reasonably coerce compliance.'"

“For 2aiii, you haven’t specified which ‘national authority’ it is to which you are referring, so this could be a completely uninvolved country that happens to like the idea of destroying a non-state actor.”

"As usual, ambassador, your feedback is helpful and I have resolved this issue, I believe."

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal. We echo the sentiment of the ambassador from Araraukar that certain clauses in this proposal could be ignored at best and abused at worst. In addition, our nation is often threatened by space pirates from the asteroids surrounding our planets. If the WA unilaterally rules our cause unjust, why must we stop defending ourselves?"

You're already specifically authorized (and urged) by the WA to act against pirates (see GA Resolution #20).

It is worth noting that I've expounded a bit upon 2.a.iv. to establish that the exercise of rights afforded to nations under international law is a just cause of warfare. I'm not sure if the text here is too broad, but for now, it makes Barfleur's objection a bit more clearly resolved. Having said that, it would be considered a self-defense issue primarily.

[Kenmoria]

“Pre-emptive self-defence, unless clarified, could be rather open to interpretation. Almost any state could be a theoretical threat, but that doesn’t mean attacking them is justified. Perhaps you could require evidence of active hostility?”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Our concerns remain unaddressed."

"Ambassador Pierce, I don't see how any nation that values its security can reasonably decide to comply with Clause 5. Basic strategy in all facets of existence, but especially in military matters, requires that you don't advertise to your opponent what your next move is, or even that you're considering any particular move. Presuming that a war may be just, prosecuting it is much harder when the enemy has foreknowledge of your aims and the means and timing by which you intend to achieve them. This requirement makes no sense in the context of actual global affairs."

"Then, we consider that permitting a doctrine of so-called 'pre-emptive self defense,' as in Clause 2(a)(i), removes any reason for this resolution to exist, full stop. Consider the so-called 'Pearl Harbor' scenario in the extremely popular MMRPG Real Life - where a nation reasonably believes that a war is inevitable given two nations' entirely irreconcilable international policy platforms, it very probably considers a first strike of that type to be 'pre-emptive self-defense.' But that don't make it so."

"And it's a hell of a lot harder to prosecute a leader or military unit for crimes against peace if you give them the defense that 'Aw, gee willikers, mein herr, we had intelligence that the Scumbagtopian Fourth Order was gearing up to invade Milkandhoneyburg, we had to act! It's not our fault the source was bunk!' This entire notion is nonsensical."

[Araraukar]

Key word -- extant. In short, the 2.a.iv. only applies to treaties signed before the passage of the resolution, not after. This makes sense; the World Assembly shouldn't require nations to violate existing treaty law, but almost certainly should prevent future treaties akin to Molotov-Ribbentrop.

OOC: If it means pre-existing, it should say pre-existing. "Extant" simply means "currently existing" or "still existing". It doesn't say anything about pre-existing. EDIT: If it worked the way you meant, then what would happen with nations that joined after this passed, with pacts made after this passed but before they joined? They'd follow the letter of the law and end up in noncompliance for doing so? Ergo, it can't mean "what existed before this passed" but rather "what exists right now, the moment I read this text", which moment happens whenever the text is read, rather than being a single event.

[Imperium Anglorum]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: It seems to me that this resolution would increased the problems associated with the security dilemma. The fundamental point here is that there are not only WA member nations. Obviously, if all nations abided by this proposal, security would be less of a pressing problem. Yet, non-member nations will still be availed aggressive action.

While the ambassador for Sierra Lyricalia brings up a Pearl Harbour, we would instead pull up the fact that a nation may feel, quite rightly, that if it waits for events to develop, their ability to resist foreign aggression may be lessened. In the current Great War, if the Parussians had let their dogs lie and waited for the next casus belli, they would have been even more heavily disadvantaged by increased Anglo-Lithuanian forces. If I were running such a nation, with the belief that our survival itself depends on being able to strike now, I would not take a wait-and-see approach. To require member nations to take such an approach could in fact lead to nations withdrawing from the Assembly.

[United Massachusetts]

"Our concerns remain unaddressed."

"Ambassador Pierce, I don't see how any nation that values its security can reasonably decide to comply with Clause 5. Basic strategy in all facets of existence, but especially in military matters, requires that you don't advertise to your opponent what your next move is, or even that you're considering any particular move. Presuming that a war may be just, prosecuting it is much harder when the enemy has foreknowledge of your aims and the means and timing by which you intend to achieve them. This requirement makes no sense in the context of actual global affairs."

"Then, we consider that permitting a doctrine of so-called 'pre-emptive self defense,' as in Clause 2(a)(i), removes any reason for this resolution to exist, full stop. Consider the so-called 'Pearl Harbor' scenario in the extremely popular MMRPG Real Life - where a nation reasonably believes that a war is inevitable given two nations' entirely irreconcilable international policy platforms, it very probably considers a first strike of that type to be 'pre-emptive self-defense.' But that don't make it so."

"And it's a hell of a lot harder to prosecute a leader or military unit for crimes against peace if you give them the defense that 'Aw, gee willikers, mein herr, we had intelligence that the Scumbagtopian Fourth Order was gearing up to invade Milkandhoneyburg, we had to act! It's not our fault the source was bunk!' This entire notion is nonsensical."

We understand. We are working on an overhaul, and need a bit of time to address your concerns.

Key word -- extant. In short, the 2.a.iv. only applies to treaties signed before the passage of the resolution, not after. This makes sense; the World Assembly shouldn't require nations to violate existing treaty law, but almost certainly should prevent future treaties akin to Molotov-Ribbentrop.

OOC: If it means pre-existing, it should say pre-existing. "Extant" simply means "currently existing" or "still existing". It doesn't say anything about pre-existing. EDIT: If it worked the way you meant, then what would happen with nations that joined after this passed, with pacts made after this passed but before they joined? They'd follow the letter of the law and end up in noncompliance for doing so? Ergo, it can't mean "what existed before this passed" but rather "what exists right now, the moment I read this text", which moment happens whenever the text is read, rather than being a single event.

I see. My mistake -- I had messed up my wording here, it seems. Will fix.

[United Massachusetts]

“Pre-emptive self-defence, unless clarified, could be rather open to interpretation. Almost any state could be a theoretical threat, but that doesn’t mean attacking them is justified. Perhaps you could require evidence of active hostility?”

"This concern has been addressed by changes to 2.a.i. This should also resolve some of Sierra Lyricalia's concerns."

“Why do you enact a blanket ban on non-state actors imitating military conflict, in clause 3, even when this conflict will not contradict any of the criteria you establish to prohibit a war by member states? This seems unnecessarily harsh, given that non-state actors aren’t normally as strong as governments.”

"Wars ought to be waged by competent state authorities if they cross international boundaries. It's worth noting that this resolution doesn't really apply to civil wars."

[Araraukar]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution

OOC: Perhaps you should also define "hostile actor", or actor in general, given their use in the second clause?

assisting a competent national authority in combating a violent non-state actor within their territory, with the permission of said competent authority,

In a civil war/revolution kind of situation two different authorities could reasonably and with equally valid claims, claim themselves to be the national authority. Are member nations allowed to choose who to believe?

where its costs, in human life, economic output, and political turmoil, far outweigh its expected returns

If you don't want to use "sapient", howabout "in people's lives"? In any case it should likely be a plural.

Further prohibits non-state actors operating within World Assembly member-states from initiating transnational military action,

Are mercenaries (think "professional army") non-state actors?

Tasks the World Assembly Just War Tribunal with analyzing potential initiations of transnational military action, where submitted for consideration, in order to determine where action would violate the mandates of clause two if undertaken and issuing injunctions against such actions,

Requires nations to submit potential initiations of transnational military action to the World Assembly Just War Tribunal for approval prior to commencing hostilities, excepting those situations where an immediate response to an imminent threat is necessary,

I can't help but feel that the order of these should be reversed, to emphasize the point of "submit action plan before acting". And also, isn't this essentially banning warfare? At least with member states as the agressors? Going to be a hard thing to pass.

Also, how detailed must such applications be? Because if very, then they form a huge security risk, if the intended target were to find out about them. And is the target indeed notified of being targeted? If not, shouldn't they be? Especially if the justification used is that they have oil WMDs or are nazis committing genocide, or somesuch, or the member nation just says they've used up all diplomatic means, while in actual fact the other nation would still be willing to talk, just not with that particular ambassador or similar small issue that the member nation is trying to be sneaky and use as an excuse to attack.

Orders nations to obey any injunctions issued by the World Assembly Just War Tribunal.

...if they're going to ignore the resolution, they're going to ignore this bit too.

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal. We echo the sentiment of the ambassador from Araraukar that certain clauses in this proposal could be ignored at best and abused at worst. In addition, our nation is often threatened by space pirates from the asteroids surrounding our planets. If the WA unilaterally rules our cause unjust, why must we stop defending ourselves?"

You're already specifically authorized (and urged) by the WA to act against pirates (see GA Resolution #20).

"Thank you for assuaging this concern of mine. Nonetheless, due to our unenthusiasm to allow the WA to vote on our military activities, we are still opposed."

[Araraukar]

due to our unenthusiasm to allow the WA to vote on our military activities

"What on earth makes you think that the WA would ever vote on your military activities? If that's what you think the proposal does, then you've completely misunderstood it."

[Inhorto]

Requires nations to submit potential initiations of transnational military action to the World Assembly Just War Tribunal for approval prior to commencing hostilities, excepting those situations where an immediate response to an imminent threat is necessary,

IC: "I am sorry, but this clause, and if I am honest this whole proposal, is simply untenable. Requiring nations to ask the World Assembly whether or not they are allowed to go to war infringes on national sovereignty. The power to declare war is a fundamental right of all nations, and while I would not oppose a proposal that implements general guidelines against unjust war, a proposal that restricts the power of a sovereign nation to declare war to only a few acceptable casus belli—and then also requires nations to seek consent of an international body—shows supreme disregard for the sovereignty of WA nations, and I invite all Members to categorically oppose this bill until—if ever—its authors make significant changes."

[Barfleur]

due to our unenthusiasm to allow the WA to vote on our military activities

"What on earth makes you think that the WA would ever vote on your military activities? If that's what you think the proposal does, then you've completely misunderstood it."

OOC: It says
[box]Tasks the World Assembly Just War Tribunal with analyzing potential initiations of transnational military action, where submitted for consideration, in order to determine where action would violate the mandates of clause two if undertaken and issuing injunctions against such actions,[box]

If I'm misunderstanding that clause, then I apologize for wasting your time.

[Araraukar]

"What on earth makes you think that the WA would ever vote on your military activities? If that's what you think the proposal does, then you've completely misunderstood it."

OOC: It says
[box]Tasks the World Assembly Just War Tribunal with analyzing potential initiations of transnational military action, where submitted for consideration, in order to determine where action would violate the mandates of clause two if undertaken and issuing injunctions against such actions,[box]

If I'm misunderstanding that clause, then I apologize for wasting your time.

OOC: The WAJWT is a committee, just like all the other committees created in resolutions. No voting is taking place.

[United Massachusetts]

"We have amended the WAJWT's role in this scheme to a more satisfactory end. We believe it will address many of the virulent threats coming to our office.

Our plan, you ask? Just have the Magisterium of the Universal Church absorb the roles of this silly WA committee. That will get everyone on my side! I hear that Francis guy is popular."


OOC: The present task revolves around Ara's definitional concerns. Expect new draft soon.

[Barfleur]

OOC: It says
[box]Tasks the World Assembly Just War Tribunal with analyzing potential initiations of transnational military action, where submitted for consideration, in order to determine where action would violate the mandates of clause two if undertaken and issuing injunctions against such actions,[box]

If I'm misunderstanding that clause, then I apologize for wasting your time.

OOC: The WAJWT is a committee, just like all the other committees created in resolutions. No voting is taking place.

I meant that in-game it would have the power to vote. Not that it would affect my roleplaying at all.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: The WAJWT is a committee, just like all the other committees created in resolutions. No voting is taking place.

I meant that in-game it would have the power to vote. Not that it would affect my roleplaying at all.

OOC: The other way around. The WA is mostly a RP institution, to be honest.

[Kenmoria]

Requires nations to submit potential initiations of transnational military action to the World Assembly Just War Tribunal for approval prior to commencing hostilities, excepting those situations where an immediate response to an imminent threat is necessary,

IC: "I am sorry, but this clause, and if I am honest this whole proposal, is simply untenable. Requiring nations to ask the World Assembly whether or not they are allowed to go to war infringes on national sovereignty. The power to declare war is a fundamental right of all nations, and while I would not oppose a proposal that implements general guidelines against unjust war, a proposal that restricts the power of a sovereign nation to declare war to only a few acceptable casus belli—and then also requires nations to seek consent of an international body—shows supreme disregard for the sovereignty of WA nations, and I invite all Members to categorically oppose this bill until—if ever—its authors make significant changes."

“National sovereignty is something your nation gives up when it joins the General Assembly, in exchange for the benefits provided by extant legislation. If your legislative body has an issue with the idea of declaring war unjustly, then they ought to have a rethink of their priorities. In the event that wars of aggression are deemed to be indispensable, then nobody is forcing your nation to enjoy the benefits of GA membership.”

[Inhorto]

IC: "I am sorry, but this clause, and if I am honest this whole proposal, is simply untenable. Requiring nations to ask the World Assembly whether or not they are allowed to go to war infringes on national sovereignty. The power to declare war is a fundamental right of all nations, and while I would not oppose a proposal that implements general guidelines against unjust war, a proposal that restricts the power of a sovereign nation to declare war to only a few acceptable casus belli—and then also requires nations to seek consent of an international body—shows supreme disregard for the sovereignty of WA nations, and I invite all Members to categorically oppose this bill until—if ever—its authors make significant changes."

“National sovereignty is something your nation gives up when it joins the General Assembly, in exchange for the benefits provided by extant legislation. If your legislative body has an issue with the idea of declaring war unjustly, then they ought to have a rethink of their priorities. In the event that wars of aggression are deemed to be indispensable, then nobody is forcing your nation to enjoy the benefits of GA membership.”

"I humbly disagree, ambassador. I believe it to be one of the core principles of this exalted body to protect national sovereignty. If I might quote the Rights And Duties Of WA States:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

"So pardon me, ambassador, if I do not accept that we must abandon sovereignty to join this organization. Quite the opposite, in my view."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Was writing a reply to Inhorto (for not noticing GA #2 only protects you from other member nations, not the WA), when I had a closer look at GA #2, and noticed this:

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Of that, the "denouncing" catches my eye - a committee denouncing - Wiktionary use #2 (which is how I read that word, generally speaking), "To criticize or speak out against (someone or something); to point out as deserving of reprehension, etc.; to openly accuse or condemn in a threatening manner; to invoke censure upon; to stigmatize; to blame." That sounds like exactly what the proposal is about, when telling a nation its reasons for war aren't justified. I feel that's actually big enough a problem to justify a legality challenge, if needed.