[PASSED] Wartime Healthcare Protections

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Hoping to submit on Monday after minor update so if you have any further feedback now would be a great time to hear it!

(OOC: There are currently multiple proposals in quorum. I recommend waiting until the queue has died down to submit.)

[Maowi]

OOC: Hoping to submit on Monday after minor update so if you have any further feedback now would be a great time to hear it!

(OOC: There are currently multiple proposals in quorum. I recommend waiting until the queue has died down to submit.)

OOC: I would, but I don't want to submit too close to Christmas because delegates will all be away, and after Christmas isn't really an option for me in terms of RL stuff so I don't really have much choice ... I'll campaign of course so I'll just have to hope that does the trick.

[Araraukar]

(OOC: There are currently multiple proposals in quorum. I recommend waiting until the queue has died down to submit.)

OOC: I would, but I don't want to submit too close to Christmas because delegates will all be away, and after Christmas isn't really an option for me in terms of RL stuff so I don't really have much choice ... I'll campaign of course so I'll just have to hope that does the trick.

OOC: I suggest submitting as planned. If they all hold quorum, then they'll go into vote one after another. It's not like there's anything wrong in there being several voteable proposals being queued at once.

[Maowi]

OOC: I would, but I don't want to submit too close to Christmas because delegates will all be away, and after Christmas isn't really an option for me in terms of RL stuff so I don't really have much choice ... I'll campaign of course so I'll just have to hope that does the trick.

OOC: I suggest submitting as planned. If they all hold quorum, then they'll go into vote one after another. It's not like there's anything wrong in there being several voteable proposals being queued at once.

OOC: Yep. I'll try and make the campaign TG as strong as possible, because we likely won't be getting approvals from WA delegates casually opening the GA proposals page.

[Maowi]

OOC: Submitted.

[Maowi]

OOC: @Sep re: duplication --

1. The World Assembly defines the use of living shields as the act of an armed party intentionally utilizing unarmed noncombatants, be they volunteers or otherwise, to shield themselves or tangible assets in such a way as to compel a strategic or tactical advantage by way of manipulating a third party’s obligation to respect the protected status of the noncombatants or their perceived value therein.

2. The World Assembly further defines noncombatants to include both civilians who belong to a protected status or are otherwise taking no direct part in the hostilities, and those belligerents who, having been granted Prisoner of War or hors de combat status, are unable to take a direct part in hostilities.

Clause 4 of this proposal refers to patients - defined as "non-civilian[s] suffering from a medical ailment requiring the attention of medical professionals" - and medical personnel - "those who provide medical treatment or triage, who are either unarmed or bear light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care." I guess patients effectively being used as living shields would necessarily have to have hors de combat status. But medical personnel are not necessarily non-combatants, and may, by definition, be bearing light arms in any case. So in some cases they will not be covered by GAR 345. There is some overlap but not total duplication which, as far as I know, is permissible?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: @Sep re: duplication --

1. The World Assembly defines the use of living shields as the act of an armed party intentionally utilizing unarmed noncombatants, be they volunteers or otherwise, to shield themselves or tangible assets in such a way as to compel a strategic or tactical advantage by way of manipulating a third party’s obligation to respect the protected status of the noncombatants or their perceived value therein.

2. The World Assembly further defines noncombatants to include both civilians who belong to a protected status or are otherwise taking no direct part in the hostilities, and those belligerents who, having been granted Prisoner of War or hors de combat status, are unable to take a direct part in hostilities.

Clause 4 of this proposal refers to patients - defined as "non-civilian[s] suffering from a medical ailment requiring the attention of medical professionals" - and medical personnel - "those who provide medical treatment or triage, who are either unarmed or bear light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care." I guess patients effectively being used as living shields would necessarily have to have hors de combat status. But medical personnel are not necessarily non-combatants, and may, by definition, be bearing light arms in any case. So in some cases they will not be covered by GAR 345. There is some overlap but not total duplication which, as far as I know, is permissible?

OOC: Minor duplication is permissible to expand on a topic, but you aren't expanding or expounding on protection for those hors de combat, merely duplicating it.

I'd have to double check my other resolutions, but I think combatant is defined somewhere.

[Araraukar]

I'd have to double check my other resolutions, but I think combatant is defined somewhere.

OOC: Which has nothing to do with this proposal, given that our proposal uses the "civilian/non-civilian" divide instead of the "combatant/non-combatant" one.

[Maowi]

OOC: In queue now. It probably won't go to vote for another 19 days, if the Convention on Animal Testing Repeal makes quorum.

[Morover]

OOC:

An interesting point about the wording in clause 2 was brought up on TRR's forum. It shouldn't be that big of a deal but I figure I'd post it here so that Maowi could give a response.

What does "military acts of war" mean, and is it different from just saying "acts of war"?

[Maowi]

OOC:

An interesting point about the wording in clause 2 was brought up on TRR's forum. It shouldn't be that big of a deal but I figure I'd post it here so that Maowi could give a response.

What does "military acts of war" mean, and is it different from just saying "acts of war"?

OOC: Thanks for bringing that over here so I could respond. That language was supposed to try and narrow the focus of the exception to try and prevent member nations from abusing it to claim that certain medical facilities are not protected. At worst, it's tautological - but at best it prevents nations from finding tenuous loopholes in the language.

[Morover]

OOC:

An interesting point about the wording in clause 2 was brought up on TRR's forum. It shouldn't be that big of a deal but I figure I'd post it here so that Maowi could give a response.

OOC: Thanks for bringing that over here so I could respond. That language was supposed to try and narrow the focus of the exception to try and prevent member nations from abusing it to claim that certain medical facilities are not protected. At worst, it's tautological - but at best it prevents nations from finding tenuous loopholes in the language.

OOC: I figured it was something along those lines. Thanks for the response, I'll transcribe it over to TRR's forum for you!

[Concrete Slab]

The proposal is now at vote.

[Tzedeck]

It seems incompetent that the destruction of medical centres is not a war crime provided it's existence was not known, with no measures to compel nations to gather intelligence on their potential existence.

It seems to be a legal weakness that allows defendants to to claim ignorance as a defence and cast reasonable doubt so easily that no sanctions are justifiable.

I also think that the fact that you are allowed to destroy medical centres is legal if they have dual purpose as accomplices in acts of war is problematical. Would it not be easier (and more ethical) to simply illegalise using medical centres for malicious purposes?

supporting such an amendment would prevent the guilty from having an ad hoc defence.

[Maowi]

It seems incompetent that the destruction of medical centres is not a war crime provided it's existence was not known, with no measures to compel nations to gather intelligence on their potential existence.

It seems to be a legal weakness that allows defendants to to claim ignorance as a defence and cast reasonable doubt so easily that no sanctions are justifiable.

OOC: Hey there, thanks for bringing your concerns to the forums for discussion.

The definition of a medical facility is "a site used for medical treatment or triage, and the associated infrastructure, which bears clearly visible markings indicating its status as such." That gives medical facilities the power to remove from military forces the ability to argue that they were unaware of their existence, by making it unmissably obvious what they are.

I also think that the fact that you are allowed to destroy medical centres is legal if they have dual purpose as accomplices in acts of war is problematical. Would it not be easier (and more ethical) to simply illegalise using medical centres for malicious purposes?

supporting such an amendment would prevent the guilty from having an ad hoc defence.

That's a fair point there, but addressing it as you suggest would cause problems of its own. A nation could continue using medical facilities as shields for its military bases, suffering some international repercussion but continuously frustrating its enemies' military attempt. Omitting medical facilities used as shields from protection has the same deterrence from doing so - nations are perfectly aware of the consequences of doing so - without allowing them to game the system in bad faith.

[Great Algerstonia]

According to the wording of this resolution, we can't remove our own patients from military hospitals. Opposed.

[Maowi]

According to the wording of this resolution, we can't remove our own patients from military hospitals. Opposed.

OOC: It would be forbidden for your military forces (not your nation's humanitarian workers or medical personnel) to do so "where this would endanger the patient's life, unless doing so is necessary for preservation of the patient's long-term health." I don't think you'd want to remove them if it could kill them unless you had to.

[Bears Armed]

According to the wording of this resolution, we can't remove our own patients from military hospitals. Opposed.

OOC: It would be forbidden for your military forces (not your nation's humanitarian workers or medical personnel) to do so "where this would endanger the patient's life, unless doing so is necessary for preservation of the patient's long-term health." I don't think you'd want to remove them if it could kill them unless you had to.

OOC
Concern that leaving certain wounded prisoners who possess information of importance in place would result in their capture and successful interrogation by the enemy?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Would not this legislation prohibit us from arresting wounded war criminals and moving them to a military hospital where they are less likely to escape? Would not also an arrest be considered violence?

[Maowi]

OOC: It would be forbidden for your military forces (not your nation's humanitarian workers or medical personnel) to do so "where this would endanger the patient's life, unless doing so is necessary for preservation of the patient's long-term health." I don't think you'd want to remove them if it could kill them unless you had to.

OOC
Concern that leaving certain wounded prisoners who possess information of importance in place would result in their capture and successful interrogation by the enemy?

OOC: If, upon removal from the medical facility, the prisoner is actually able to stay alive and compart information to the enemy, they're well enough not to be included under "where this would endanger the patient's life," I think, and so be able to be moved. And if it is likely that the enemy will remove them, and this would endanger their life, I think transferring them would be "necessary for preservation of the patient's long-term health."

Would not this legislation prohibit us from arresting wounded war criminals and moving them to a military hospital where they are less likely to escape? Would not also an arrest be considered violence?

OOC: If the war criminal will die in the transit from one hospital to another, then yes, that would be prohibited. I also don't think they'd be in any fit state to escape. If they are able to escape, moving them wouldn't endanger their life, and so would be permitted.

I believe the interpretation that violence does not include arrest is a reasonable one. Most commonly accepted definitions of violence refer to behaviour showing an intent to physically harm or kill the person. Arrest does not have to include that, particularly for a wounded person.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If the war criminal will die in the transit from one hospital to another

That doesn't seem to be the standard set by the proposal, which is one of endangering life.

[Maowi]

If the war criminal will die in the transit from one hospital to another

That doesn't seem to be the standard set by the proposal, which is one of endangering life.

OOC: The proposal talks about "inability to receive medical treatment or triage" endangering life. So yes, my wording in my response was somewhat approximate, but if the duration of the journey is such that they will not be likely to die, they may be moved, but if their death is probable even in that time span removed from medical treatment, they would not be allowed to be moved, and I think it highly unlikely that they would in that case be able to survive long-term having escaped, or even have the physical ability to escape in the first place.

[WayNeacTia]

If the war criminal will die in the transit from one hospital to another

That doesn't seem to be the standard set by the proposal, which is one of endangering life.

Seems like grounds for a repeal to me. Snap to it.

[Maowi]

That doesn't seem to be the standard set by the proposal, which is one of endangering life.

Seems like grounds for a repeal to me. Snap to it.

OOC: ... I literally just addressed that in the post above

[Gorundu]

The North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs has issued a recommendation that WA nations vote FOR this proposal. Consistent with the vote on our regional forum Delegate McMasterdonia has also voted For. Good luck with your proposal!