[DEFEATED] Preventing Unjust Warfare

[Grays Harbor]

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.

(The following is my opinion as a player, not an official GenSec ruling)

Anticipating further discussion, We currently agree with Araraukar’s assessment here, on this contradicting an existing resolution.

[Maowi]

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:

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.

(The following is my opinion as a player, not an official GenSec ruling)

Anticipating further discussion, We currently agree with Araraukar’s assessment here, on this contradicting an existing resolution.

OOC: I appreciate the difference, but if you followed the same line of reasoning wouldn't protecting civilians from war crimes (GAR 317) for example qualify as 'denouncing ... military activities'? And if so, would that be sufficient precedent for the legality of this proposal?

[Grays Harbor]

(The following is my opinion as a player, not an official GenSec ruling)

Anticipating further discussion, We currently agree with Araraukar’s assessment here, on this contradicting an existing resolution.

OOC: I appreciate the difference, but if you followed the same line of reasoning wouldn't protecting civilians from war crimes (GAR 317) for example qualify as 'denouncing ... military activities'? And if so, would that be sufficient precedent for the legality of this proposal?

Not really. There is a distinct difference between civilians and soldiers, and protecting civilians from war crimes is distinct from limiting a governments ability and inclination to declare war, which is protected by "Rights and Duties ...", whereas, there is no protection from committing war crimes in "Rights and Duties ...".

[Kenmoria]

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.

(OOC: Meaning number four could also potentially fit, as could number one. Although they are less likely overall due to being less common, both of those are more similar to the other terms in the GA #2 list. I believe that, if there is a possible interpretation of a previously passed that avoids contradiction, that is the one with which Gensec goes.)

[Araraukar]

Meaning number four could also potentially fit, as could number one.

OOC: Both of which are marked as obsolete, though. Oh and GA #2 still additionally uses "ratifying", which also fits here.

I believe that, if there is a possible interpretation of a previously passed that avoids contradiction, that is the one with which Gensec goes.

And last I invoked that, I was told it's not necessarily the case.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There's a difference between engaging in ongoing hostilities which is what GA 2 talks about, and opening such hostilities. I find it strange for Ara, who says that non-compliance is impossible, to also then make the argument that there would be some hostilities which would be ruled upon. If the cause of war is declined, then there cannot be such hostilities and GA 2 doesn't apply.

[United Massachusetts]

There's a difference between engaging in ongoing hostilities which is what GA 2 talks about, and opening such hostilities. I find it strange for Ara, who says that non-compliance is impossible, to also then make the argument that there would be some hostilities which would be ruled upon. If the cause of war is declined, then there cannot be such hostilities and GA 2 doesn't apply.

This does not make sense, as ACA already implicitly acknowledges the possibility of non-compliance; if there was no non-compliance, the resolution would do nothing. Further looking at ACA, however, it seems that all the roles of the WAJWT would be absorbed by the Compliance Commission -- if a member engaged in unjust warfare, they would be in non-compliance, and the Commission would be tasked with determining whether to "issue an injunction."

Now, I think that if we were to eliminate the WAJWT from the picture, this might be legal, as the CC would be condemning the non-compliance moreso than the actual military action. Then again, I am not buying my own argument here.

For now, Ara and GH seem to be correct.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll diagram the bloody thing.

1. If GA 2 applies to military action and
2. Sending a letter declaring a war is not a military action (let's be serious, posting a letter is not fighting a war)
3. Then GA 2 doesn't apply.

It's a quite simple question of time. One cannot take a side in a military endeavour if it does not yet exist. And sending a letter is not itself a military action. The military action starts only after the letter is received. The sending of it, therefore, cannot be a such an action.

What I noted about Zara's argument for why GA 2 applies is that it is fundamentally premised on intervention in an ongoing military action. I agree that such an intervention would be prohibited by GA 2. But if the proposal were passed, no nation would violate it, eliminating any military actions in which the WA would be intervening. It's a position that defeats itself.

If you would like to tell me that non-compliance exists, then I would perhaps direct you to "Compliance Commission" and "Administrative Compliance Act"; my name is on both of them.

[Araraukar]

I find it strange for Ara, who says that non-compliance is impossible

OOC: Obviously it's not impossible for you to kill someone even if unlawful killing was against the law, nor am I saying that compliance would be literally magical. I'm saying that allowing nations the luxury of choosing incompliance makes no sense to me, because if they can choose whether to comply with resolutions, why would they comply with the ones that try to enforce the compliance? It's not like the WA has anything in its use that it can do to actually force a nation to pay any fines. And the whole "and if you don't, then the other nations won't play with you" is not really a threat to a nation that's not happy about other nations being able to meddle with it in the first place. So as Araraukar is one of those nations, I'm ignoring the compliance-enforcement resolutions, because if my IC people found out about them, they'd more than happily pick some resolution they don't particularly like, to ignore, and also ignoring any fees the compliance committee tried to apply to the nation, to the point where the committee had no choice but to go "very well then, we're isolating you from trade and traffic and whatnot", at which point Araraukarians would go "Yeay! Goal achieved!" more or less. And before you ask why the nation's currently in the WA, if it doesn't like being in the WA, it's related to why Janis isn't at WAHQ, and will likely get explained eventually...

Not sure how many times I need to repeat this, but I'll keep repeating it until it sinks in, I guess.

Additionally, for your dream of compliance not being mandatory and automatic, the ingame message needs changing. "Laws have been enacted to bring (nation name) into compliance with the World Assembly resolution (resolution name)" doesn't really leave a lot of wriggle room for nations to claim that their laws say something else.

1. If GA 2 applies to military action and
2. Sending a letter declaring a war is not a military action (let's be serious, posting a letter is not fighting a war)
3. Then GA 2 doesn't apply.

It's a quite simple question of time. One cannot take a side in a military endeavour if it does not yet exist. And sending a letter is not itself a military action. The military action starts only after the letter is received. The sending of it, therefore, cannot be a such an action.

OOC: But you're not sending a letter to declare a war. You're applying to the committee for the permission to start a war, which is where article 10 of GA #2 comes into play; the committee doesn't have the right to give or deny you the permission to declare a war. "Ratify" has a rather simple meaning, even if you argued that "denounce" did not.

why GA 2 applies is that it is fundamentally premised on intervention in an ongoing military action.

Where in GA #2 does it say anything about ongoing military action?

[Sinyal]

I don't like this

[Imperium Anglorum]

You aren't asking a committee for the ability to declare war. It's plainly that way in the proposal.

If it dealt with military action that is about to happen, it would say that. But it says stuff about military action. If I write a law declaring some provision unconscionable in contracts, it doesn't also regulate how those contracts are made. If it were to do that, it would say so.

Re: Compliance. How can it possibly be a consistent position to denounce picking and choosing which resolutions to follow and then literally justifying that position by picking and choosing which resolutions to follow? It's as if you are arguing that unlawful killings happen, but because the law isn't followed sometimes, we will pretend the police don't exist.

And regarding the telegrams, your own argument at the top preempts. Laws aren't always followed. If you believe that magical compliance isn't possible, you necessarily have to accept the position that the WACC message does not make members magically comply.

[United Massachusetts]

I'll diagram the bloody thing.

1. If GA 2 applies to military action and
2. Sending a letter declaring a war is not a military action (let's be serious, posting a letter is not fighting a war)
3. Then GA 2 doesn't apply.

It's a quite simple question of time. One cannot take a side in a military endeavour if it does not yet exist. And sending a letter is not itself a military action. The military action starts only after the letter is received. The sending of it, therefore, cannot be a such an action.

What I noted about Zara's argument for why GA 2 applies is that it is fundamentally premised on intervention in an ongoing military action. I agree that such an intervention would be prohibited by GA 2. But if the proposal were passed, no nation would violate it, eliminating any military actions in which the WA would be intervening. It's a position that defeats itself.

I think I see, but your reading highlights an interesting ambiguity in my definitions.

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "initiating transnational military action," as the act of disturbing a transnational peace, either through a declaration of war, invasion, or another hostile and violent measure across international borders,

I wrote this intending these as three separate actions, the latter of which are in fact ongoing military endeavours, rather than mere letters. In short, I did not intend for the "declaration" to apply to the latter two examples. Now, this presents an issue in that if I had to remove the parts in blue or green, a member could get around the definition by simply invading without a declaration. I think, however, that because the WAJWT is empowered here to analyze potential conflicts, this might not be an issue. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of GA 2, we cannot really do anything to stop a surprise invasion that the WA doesn't have any intelligence pointing towards.

OOC: But you're not sending a letter to declare a war. You're applying to the committee for the permission to start a war, which is where article 10 of GA #2 comes into play; the committee doesn't have the right to give or deny you the permission to declare a war. "Ratify" has a rather simple meaning, even if you argued that "denounce" did not.

At the time you wrote this comment, I had already changed wording of the resolution. This is no longer true.

I find it strange for Ara, who says that non-compliance is impossible

OOC: Obviously it's not impossible for you to kill someone even if unlawful killing was against the law, nor am I saying that compliance would be literally magical. I'm saying that allowing nations the luxury of choosing incompliance makes no sense to me, because if they can choose whether to comply with resolutions, why would they comply with the ones that try to enforce the compliance?

So, what on earth are you saying? How can we have automatic, mandatory, and 100% effective implementation of World Assembly law without magic? It seems (a) incredibly unrealistic and (b) a bit of a cop-out to suggest that compliance issues just work themselves out somehow. And I really don't think anyone here believes compliance should be optional, just in the same way that laws aren't optional. A law banning murder is quite clearly mandatory. That doesn't mean that all murder magically stops, as you've noted. But acknowledging that these murders still happen, even against the law, isn't "allowing people the luxury of choosing noncompliance." That's patent nonsense.

To perhaps make the issue clearer, consider the case most relevant to United Massachusetts, compliance with GA 286. As we've said many times, we are not in compliance with the resolution, and nothing the WA can do will make us. We as a nation are making a conscious choice to disobey the very much mandatory resolution. The WA requires us to legalize abortion; we have not done so, and roleplay with the consequences of that. Similarly, we are not in full compliance with the ACA, and roleplay with those consequences as well. And they are steep -- apart from other nations in violation of ACA, I really am hit hard economically by embargoes from virtually all sides. Such are the consequences of disobeying a mandatory resolution, but this approach: acknowledging that as a brute fact, some member nations have broken the mandatory rules, and then punishing them IC appropriately, is entirely more sensible than this nonsense about 100% effective implementation. Frankly, it also makes the game more interesting; authors have to account for how to ensure compliance, as they would in any other international body.

Also, regarding the WACC telegrams: OK, so there's a gameplay mechanism that seems to support this supposed magical compliance argument. Well, you have to accept that there are gameplay mechanisms that counteract that argument as well -- like the fact that our nation can still answer issues however it likes, and that "no abortion" is a policy our nation holds. I'm not saying that this is an argument against magical compliance; my point is that the RP matters more than the GP mechanism here, by a mile.

[Bears Armed]

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.

OOC
I read that clause as referring to specific conflicts & military activities -- so that, for example, the GA couldn't (if the Branding rule didn't prevent it anyway) call for invasion of one particular nation whose current government it doesn't like, or vote to deploy peace-keeping forces somewhere -- rather than types of conflict conceptually. Otherwise, given the fact that a majority of GenSec has voted to interpret the "police actions" part of that clause as meaning "any actions by police forces" rather than just in the also-used-in-RL sense of "military actions against 'non-state' actors", the GA couldn't even tell member nations to treat anything as a crime for which arrests should be made... which it has done.

[Imperium Anglorum]

UM, I agree. The WA needs to already know under the framework of GA 2.

BA, huh? The traditional justification for no WA army in GA 2 doesn't have to do with specific military actions, it has to do with them in general. If we, the Community, adopted a reading on GA 2 against only taking sides in specific conflicts, (1) how about delegation of that authority and (2) why is peacekeeping prohibited?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Otherwise, given the fact that a majority of GenSec has voted to interpret the "police actions" part of that clause as meaning "any actions by police forces" rather than just in the also-used-in-RL sense of "military actions against 'non-state' actors", the GA couldn't even tell member nations to treat anything as a crime for which arrests should be made... which it has done.

OOC: I just want to note real quick that that opinion refers to the actual coordination of police forces by a WA committee - not to the more general concept of enacting criminal law. It's the difference between (say) the UK Parliament making a law against plum puddings and then moving on to the next thing, vs. Parliament summoning the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and saying "Send your men into Islington and Camden Town and flush out the dastardly ring of pudding-pushers operating in those areas." The WA's power to make criminal law, and require nations to enforce it, has nothing to do with anything in Articles 9/10 of GAR #2.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Some tories, I hear, would be more than happy to send the police into Islington North.

[Araraukar]

So, what on earth are you saying?

OOC: I was mainly talking to IA to whom I've explained the whole thing before in detail around this forum, but since you're the OP and asked me, and consider it somehow pertinent to your proposal, I guess it's not threadjacking to reply...

The following is my reasoning, others may or may not agree with it.

NS IC for me is the nation and the characters, yes, but also the only way I can logically explain the NS multiverse from my characters' POV, which includes the whole multiversal concept and WAHQ being essentially in its own pocket dimension (which also explains the morphability of the building and how the Reflecting Pool is always under whatever window you throw someone out of) that connects to everywhere else, thus giving the IC logic for how there are over 20k nations, some of which consist of several solar systems, and all the Earth variants (Araraukar sits on one, but it's definitely not a carbon copy of RL Earth) and myriad human nations and so forth.

NS OOC is me, the player, the RL human, who can see all the rules, forum and game and proposal all, and has to figure out how to translate into IC the ones that wouldn't really make much sense from a purely IC POV. That's why in OOC reality I only have one WA nation at a time, but in IC both Araraukar and the PPU are WA nations currently (both for IC reasons of their own).

The telegram saying my nation's laws have been changed to fit the newest resolution is OOC and IC at the same time. So is the action of joining the WA. I, the RL human player, use my email to confirm joining the WA, it's that simple. In IC it wouldn't make any sense to be so. Granted, WA probably isn't as difficult to join and exit as, say, the EU is, but there have to be some kind of IC contract where the nation basically agrees to change their laws to fit the existing resolutions, and acknowledge WA laws to be applied above their own. Otherwise WA as an organization doesn't make any sense. So me clicking "join WA" button equals a much lengthier process for my IC characters, and when I confirm the email, that's basically the end of that process for them, with the national leader signing the "WA contract".

So when the TG comes about a new resolution passing? To me that signals the end of the process of the passage of a new resolution - of my IC people having sorted things out on their end to be in compliance with what was passed.

Now, Araraukar is basically at the same time a socialist utopia and a police state dystopia, it gives its citizens all kinds of freedoms and rights, on par and beyond some the WA does, but at the same time it likes controlling their lives as tightly as it can. Even more tightly it likes controlling who and what goes in and out of the nation, and that's something that the WA seriously interferes with, so even though there aren't other WA nations (except PPU, but it's quite entangled with Araraukar and allies with it and all that) on the planet, the "portal" to WAHQ and back is open all the time (though can only be sailed (it's out at the sea, but within Araraukar's national waters) through twice a day, at high tide), so there are no IC reasons (OOCly, of course, I'm not forced to RP with anyone I don't want) why another WA nation couldn't sail a ship through and force Araraukarian coast guard (closest thing to military the nation has - it has a lot of coastline) to play nice with them. There are many other reasons as well, of course, but not going to go into those details right now.

So, in IC terms, what exactly could WA do to a nation that disobeyed a resolution? Send a strongly worded letter? We've seen with RLUN how effective that is. Call for a WA-wide trade embargo? That'd be more than welcome end result to a nation like Araraukar, that doesn't particularly want to have to deal with the other WA nations (PPU could get away with dealing with them with creative compliance that doesn't even require dictionary wrestling). So if such a mechanism existed, as far as my IC people knew, they would pick a resolution they don't particularly like, to disobey it, and end up getting WA-isolated, which would suit them more than fine.

Why don't I want to let them do that? Because it would defeat the point of the IC deal of complying with resolutions because your nation signed the WA charter or whatever the IC equivalent would be called. It's more interesting to me as a player to do creative compliance (letter of the law, not the spirit of the law), than open noncompliance with whatever resolutions my IC peeps didn't like.

Let's say that the compliance enforcement resolutions didn't exist. What would change for Araraukar? Nothing. It would still obey the rest of the resolutions, whether it liked them or not. So I get to keep things logical in IC perspective by pretending they don't exist. I'm not disobeying them so much as ignoring their existence. Those resolutions exist to enforce compliance, yes? I'm already compliant, I can ignore them existing and it would change nothing. At least I RP Araraukar (and PPU) the same way on GA forum as elsewhere.

I hope the above makes sense, because it was written in among making dinner. If you spot incomplete sentences or ones not making grammatical sense, please let me know.

Now where does that all come into play, when I'm talking OOCly about compliance and contradictions and all that? It really doesn't. OOCly I, the RL person, don't have to obey any of the WA resolutions, because they aren't real laws. I only have to obey the game rules, forum rules, proposal rules when I talk about proposal texts. So does everyone else, even the people who are openly noncompliant with the majority of WA resolutions in their RP realities.

If something is still unclear, TG me, so we don't take up space on the forum.

EDIT: As per the proposal at hand - if you removed clauses 4 and 5, exactly how would that hurt the proposal? Nations like mine who would obey resolutions anyway based on the "what I signed when I joined", would obey them based on that, and nations that didn't, would get to answer to the compliance committee and suffer for it.

[Inhorto]

I'll diagram the bloody thing.

1. If GA 2 applies to military action and
2. Sending a letter declaring a war is not a military action (let's be serious, posting a letter is not fighting a war)
3. Then GA 2 doesn't apply.

It's a quite simple question of time. One cannot take a side in a military endeavour if it does not yet exist. And sending a letter is not itself a military action. The military action starts only after the letter is received. The sending of it, therefore, cannot be a such an action.

OOC: This makes no sense to me. A declaration of war is a statement of purpose pronouncing that a nation intends to take up arms against another. It cannot be described as just "posting a letter"; that line of thinking is analogous to calling any law just "posting a letter." A declaration carries as much weight, if not more, as actually sending boots onto the ground; it is very much a military action. I believe that your interpretation is unproductive and false, and to be honest only an attempt to find a loophole to circumvent GAR 2.

I also believe that there are legality issues with § 4:

Tasks the World Assembly Just War Tribunal with issuing injunctions against potential or actual initiations of transnational military action that contradict the mandates of clause 2, after analyzing the conditions of conflict and granting a potential aggressor the chance to defend their rationale,

Right, but this tribunal's whole purpose is essentially to admonish and injunct a nation from starting an armed conflict. I feel this to still constitute a violation of GAR 2. As Araraukar pointed out, the key word in GAR 2 is denounce, which is exactly what your proposed tribunal does. In addition, there already exists a body that ensures that WA nations proscribe to regulatory legislation: the Compliance Commission. If a nation were to violate §§ 2-3, we already have the Compliance Commission to bring them to order; therefore, because we already have the Compliance Commission that was formed specifically to enforce legislation, I think you proposed World Assembly Just War Tribunal is frivolous and dilatory even without considering its legality.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You should have read the portion after the list because your argument over the meaning of a declaration of war still suffers from the time problem. A war only exists after you declare it. Because the act of declaring it necessarily predates the war, it is not something which falls into GA 2's neutrality provisions.

[Inhorto]

You should have read the portion after the list because your argument over the meaning of a declaration of war still suffers from the time problem. A war only exists after you declare it. Because the act of declaring it necessarily predates the war, it is not something which falls into GA 2's neutrality provisions.

I fail to understand your argument. Are you telling me that the GA can stop a country from declaring war, but not actually stop them from warring? The author has defined "initiating transnational military action" as "disturbing a transnational peace, either through a declaration of war, invasion, or another hostile and violent measure across international borders." I assume from the proposal's text that the author's proposed Just War Tribunal has the power to injunct all forms of international armed conflict—not just those facilitated by a declaration of war. So I am confused whether or not the author believes the WA can litigate all situations of translational conflict or not, or if what you are telling me is a reflection of your own interpretation.

What I noted about Zara's argument for why GA 2 applies is that it is fundamentally premised on intervention in an ongoing military action. I agree that such an intervention would be prohibited by GA 2. But if the proposal were passed, no nation would violate it, eliminating any military actions in which the WA would be intervening. It's a position that defeats itself.

If you would like to tell me that non-compliance exists, then I would perhaps direct you to "Compliance Commission" and "Administrative Compliance Act"; my name is on both of them.

Where does it say ongoing? here is the text of the clause in question:

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.

I would argue that a declaration of war is a matter of "civil and international strife." Again, I fail to see why a declaration of war can be denounced by the WA, while the war itself cannot. I see them as being one and the same, and I do not believe that there is any legal weight or merit to distinguishing them in the context of GAR 2. Again, that is the issue here; the WA must remain neutral in matters of civil and international strife, whatever they are. Furthermore, there is already an institution that punishes members who fail to comply: the Compliance Commission.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The author's current draft does touch on intervention in conflicts. I am arguing that a portion of the author's draft does not touch on such conflicts because they do not exist yet. This is not altogether a complicated idea, UM reflected already on what that implies, above.

Civil and international strife, contextualised by the rest of the clause, has to do with the sort of things that involved armed conflict and military activities. Insofar as one does not yet exist, that specific provision in GA 2 doesn't apply. As I told you in the post above your response, arguing that there exists no difference between the declaration of war and the war itself doesn't actually defeat the timing argument. It could be relevant in defeating the "posting a letter" argument, but if you really want to argue that posting a letter is equivalent to mass slaughter, please do so.

Regarding the Compliance Commission, you don't need to tell me that the Compliance Commission and the Administrative Compliance Act exist. I was a large part in writing the legislation which established the current compliance framework. Next, you'll tell Jefferson that the United States declared independence from Great Britain.

[Inhorto]

I will try to respond to each section of your argument so as to be more clear.

The author's current draft does touch on intervention in conflicts. I am arguing that a portion of the author's draft does not touch on such conflicts because they do not exist yet. This is not altogether a complicated idea, UM reflected already on what that implies, above.

I hope that, if you reread this, it may become clear why I am a little confused. Your first sentence starts off by noting that the author's current draft "does touch on intervention in conflicts." You wrote the first sentence as a matter of fact, even using the emphatic do. However, your second sentence says that you believe that the author's draft does not touch on such conflicts. You used nearly the similar phrasing for both sentences, except with completely opposite meanings. Which one is it? Does the author touch on "these conflicts" or does s/he not? Based on the rest of your argument, I am going to infer the latter, but I hope you realize how imprecise, unclear writing contributes to the confusion.

Civil and international strife, contextualised by the rest of the clause, has to do with the sort of things that involved armed conflict and military activities. Insofar as one does not yet exist, that specific provision in GA 2 doesn't apply. As I told you in the post above your response, arguing that there exists no difference between the declaration of war and the war itself doesn't actually defeat the timing argument. It could be relevant in defeating the "posting a letter" argument, but if you really want to argue that posting a letter is equivalent to mass slaughter, please do so.

If I am properly understanding the "timing argument," what I believe you mean to say is that it would be impossible for any nation to engage in an unjust war, presumably because the proposed Tribunal would declare that nation's declaration of war invalid before that nation goes to war; therefore, by injuncting the declaration of war and not the war itself, GAR #2 does not apply. Is that correct?

Again, to this I would again point out that not all armed conflicts are proceeded by any formal declaration. There might certainly be cases of an unhinged despot invading a foreign land without consulting the rest of his populace. In this case, there is no declaration of war that can be injuncted. Your legal interpretation, if I am understanding it correctly, opens a loophole wherein states can circumvent the Just War Tribunal by not declaring war. Furthermore, it is my opinion based on a reading of GAR #2 that a declaration of war is in itself a " matter of civil and international strife." I believe that you distinguish between legislation and the action, while I see them as being one and the same. To draw a comparison, if a nation passes a law against marijuana usage, I would see that law as a fundamental part of the physical action of prohibiting marijuana (e.g., law enforcement arresting a marijuana dealer). I think bills, proposals, and declarations are not simply pieces of paper; they carry weight in and of themselves.

Regarding the Compliance Commission, you don't need to tell me that the Compliance Commission and the Administrative Compliance Act exist. I was a large part in writing the legislation which established the current compliance framework. Next, you'll tell Jefferson that the United States declared independence from Great Britain.

Evidently, I was not around when the Compliance Commission was created. However, I hope that, since you were a crucial voice in drafting the Administrative Compliance Act, you would recognize that this proposed Just War Tribunal can and should have its duties fulfilled by the Compliance Commission. That is my point in the end, as removing the Just War Tribunal would resolve all legal issues that have been brought up concerning GAR #2.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll respond to those threads in sequence, numbered.

1. UM's draft does deal with active on-going conflicts. If he removed the portions that UM quoted in blue and green supra, it would not. That is the point that I made and UM understood supra.

2. Nations could engage in unjust wars by violating an injunction issued. Because military force authorisations come before the actual use of military force, the WA is not intervening in a conflict, only in the decision to come into one. UM rightly noted also supra that this only applies in cases where the WA could determine that such a decision is being made.

I'm not sure what the policies are in a country with an unhinged despot. But if the despot were to order that military force be used, the WA could countermand that order until such time that force starts being used and it becomes actual strife.

Your example about cannabis also doesn't beat the timing argument. If the WA is prohibited from passing judgment on raids of cannabis dealers, it can simply prohibit the passage of legislation which would cause those raids in the first place, before they happen.

3. That's probably true, I would have to look into the matter more; the way I initially thought of the Compliance Commission was that it would be a totally invisible framework under which other resolutions could be written (in the same way finance is resolved by GA 17's obligatory framework). Whether that isn't the case would require some investigations. This is not a new point; it was raised and UM accepted it, also supra. I am unclear where I made an argument for the requirement of some Tribunal.

My arguments are not premised on there existing any specific tribunal for the issuing of injunctions. And the arguments for why GA 2 is violated would be true whether or not this Just War Tribunal issued them or if some organ of the Compliance Commission issued them. I'm unclear as to how this specific Tribunal has any relevance to the discussion of contradiction vis-à-vis GA 2.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Where does the current draft say anything about ongoing conflicts? On the contrary, the bit about the injunctions mentions "potential initiations" (which in terms of actions means "not happened yet"), and the definition for the initiations is not restricted to declaring war but also actual acts of war.

Also, pay more attention to the GA #2 word ratifying.

[United Massachusetts]

Will respond today, in a few hours. Just still travelling.