[PASSED] Repeal Conscientious Objectors Act

[Flibbleites]

I would just like to point out that the Concientious Objector Act should never have even been brought to vote.

Section 1, 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.

Section 2, Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Section 3, 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.

The Concientious Objector Act broke 1,1, in that in took the legal power to maintain a proper military from its member states. It broke 2,4, in that it prohibits a proper method to maintain a force for self-defense, by allowing anybody, under any circumstance, to refuse military service. It broke 3,10, in that military recruitment is a military activity, so that the passing of this resolution is the organising of a military activity.

Wrong, take a look at Article 2 of Rights and Duties.

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.

The bolded section means that the WA can pass whatever resolution they want without contradicting Rights and Duties.

As for your claims about contradicting Article 10, that has nothing to do with national militaries, that's basically the "No WA Army" rule in resolution form.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Grays Harbor]

I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

And silly and unreasonable us, we object TO having our military crippled in order to salve the conscience of the select few.

[Worvland]

I would just like to point out that the Concientious Objector Act should never have even been brought to vote.

Section 1, 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.

Section 2, Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Section 3, 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.

The Concientious Objector Act broke 1,1, in that in took the legal power to maintain a proper military from its member states. It broke 2,4, in that it prohibits a proper method to maintain a force for self-defense, by allowing anybody, under any circumstance, to refuse military service. It broke 3,10, in that military recruitment is a military activity, so that the passing of this resolution is the organising of a military activity.

If you say that the resolution breaks 1,1, then how does any other resolution not break 1,1. For example the current On Abortion, the decision over abortion is considered a legal right of the national government in some nations.

The resolution does not prevent self-defense against armed attack, you may still use your militaries, you just may not force someone to be in the military against their beliefs.

Preventing conscription of conscientious objectors does not involve the WA in "matters of civil and international strife", if the resolution legislated a particular war, that would break this requirement.

It's important to remember that because there are many opinions, we must abide by the letter of the law, not just the spirit of the law.

[The Rich Port]

I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

And silly and unreasonable us, we object TO having our military crippled in order to salve the conscience of the select few.

If it's of the few, then your army wouldn't be crippled, would it?

[Lykosia]

One of the duties of a citizen is to defend his/her country, by any means necessary, including by get into a war. With this Conscientious Objectors Act, conscription in most WA nations wouldn't really working because people will avoid it easily by just claim that they're anti-militarism and peace lover. It'll be hard if a foreign country invade your country.

We hereby support this repeal.

[Jedi Utopians]

Would it be illegal to note that a replacement proposal is not only in drafting, but was at the time of passage?

I believe you mean "in the text of the repeal." That would be inadvisable. Such details are best left for the discussion, not the text. We don't want to create a precedent that "well, I had a proposal about this too, so it should be insta-repealed on that basis alone line in the future.

[Kaczania]

The Constitutional Monarchy of Kaczania endorses this repeal.

[Jedi Utopians]

The Republic supports this resolution in the belief that more discussion would create better law. Also, I note that the Republic had to exercise its "resign and reapply" powers to avoid compulsory action when the target resolution went into affect or cease to be a nation. We encourage a replacement proposal that recognizes some especially small nations have compulsory military service to protect its people's civil rights.

[Eireann Fae]

The Republic supports this resolution in the belief that more discussion would create better law. Also, I note that the Republic had to exercise its "resign and reapply" powers to avoid compulsory action when the target resolution went into affect or cease to be a nation. We encourage a replacement proposal that recognizes some especially small nations have compulsory military service to protect its people's civil rights.

"Shoving a gun into your citizens' hands and forcing them to go out and kill is not protecting the peoples' civil rights. It is protecting your nation's rights, on a government level. We are here to defend the rights of your pacifist citizens, Ambassador. Not necessarily what's in the best interest of your government."

[Sticky States]

I approve and will vote to repeal.

[Jedi Utopians]

The Republic supports this resolution in the belief that more discussion would create better law. Also, I note that the Republic had to exercise its "resign and reapply" powers to avoid compulsory action when the target resolution went into affect or cease to be a nation. We encourage a replacement proposal that recognizes some especially small nations have compulsory military service to protect its people's civil rights.

"Shoving a gun into your citizens' hands and forcing them to go out and kill is not protecting the peoples' civil rights. It is protecting your nation's rights, on a government level. We are here to defend the rights of your pacifist citizens, Ambassador. Not necessarily what's in the best interest of your government."

Ours is a democracy, my dear colleagues: our people are our government. They make the laws they abide by and are also our military. Every military leader will tell you that people who don't want to fight are bad for the unit. I have no objection to Conscientious Objectors. I do object, however, to the language of the current resolution, to the way it was rushed through this body, and expect that further discussion will yield similar, but more specific language.

Also, we don't use guns, and where possible, we avoid killing. Our military is defensive, and once the enemy is incapacitated, we seek a peaceful, diplomatic end to the process. Often over chocolate milk.

[Darenjo]

We approve of and will vote for the draft currently in quorum.

Personally, I'd of liked to see Cardoness' draft at vote.

[Cardoness]

We approve of and will vote for the draft currently in quorum.

Personally, I'd of liked to see Cardoness' draft at vote.

Ah, thanks but 'twas not to be. I like the draft that in up for vote, but also feel it just focuses on one aspect of the COA. I would have liked to see this one and mine merged together but a repeal is a repeal is a repeal, language matters not.

[The Euforian Union]

I understand why many of you will view this line: "DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections." with some skepticism.
However, if not for that part of the COA, then you could theoretically, and quite plausibly, have persons in our various nations who were conscripted prior to the COA, against their philosophical or religious beliefs, and would have no way out.

So until I see an alternative replacement resolution that takes this into account, I am voting AGAINST the repeal.

[Eireann Fae]

"With this now up for vote, I would like to reaffirm our vote AGAINST this repeal, and encourage those others that value the freedom of their citizens to not stain their hands with blood at the will of the State to do the same."

[Cardoness]

I understand why many of you will view this line: "DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections." with some skepticism.
However, if not for that part of the COA, then you could theoretically, and quite plausibly, have persons in our various nations who were conscripted prior to the COA, against their philosophical or religious beliefs, and would have no way out.

So until I see an alternative replacement resolution that takes this into account, I am voting AGAINST the repeal.

The replacement being drafted here does provide for that in article III section 4.

[Numdia]

I was diagreeing with the act itself. If you say tha people are able to say they don't want to join the service during a time of crisis because of their "moral beliefs" then draftdodgers can just say their moral beliefs are against all forms of violence.

All the same I'd rather see this change take place then the entire bill scrapped. It was good in some aspects.

[Eireann Fae]

I was diagreeing with the act itself. If you say tha people are able to say they don't want to join the service during a time of crisis because of their "moral beliefs" then draftdodgers can just say their moral beliefs are against all forms of violence.

All the same I'd rather see this change take place then the entire bill scrapped. It was good in some aspects.

"Is it really so inconceivable to you that there are, indeed, people that abhor all forms of violence? I certainly hope I am not as jaded as you are when I am your age..."

[Numdia]

The Republic supports this resolution in the belief that more discussion would create better law. Also, I note that the Republic had to exercise its "resign and reapply" powers to avoid compulsory action when the target resolution went into affect or cease to be a nation. We encourage a replacement proposal that recognizes some especially small nations have compulsory military service to protect its people's civil rights.

"Shoving a gun into your citizens' hands and forcing them to go out and kill is not protecting the peoples' civil rights. It is protecting your nation's rights, on a government level. We are here to defend the rights of your pacifist citizens, Ambassador. Not necessarily what's in the best interest of your government."

Yes but in the event of a crisis (such as foreign invasion) a man, even if he does not have the heart to kill for his country, must have the stomach to die for it. It doesn't matter if your "protecting the rights of pacifist citizens" if your nation is getting annexed.

And even if they would recieve some support from the WA in the event of a foreign threat there is no reason to force nations to become dependent on foreign aid.

[Numdia]

I was diagreeing with the act itself. If you say tha people are able to say they don't want to join the service during a time of crisis because of their "moral beliefs" then draftdodgers can just say their moral beliefs are against all forms of violence.

All the same I'd rather see this change take place then the entire bill scrapped. It was good in some aspects.

"Is it really so inconceivable to you that there are, indeed, people that abhor all forms of violence? I certainly hope I am not as jaded as you are when I am your age..."

No, there are people that are disagree with violence and such. But there will be those who take advantage of the oppertunity in order to cheat the system. I doubt more than half of the people who wouldn't join the service on grounds of moral beliefs would actually partake in such ideals.

[The Euforian Union]

I understand why many of you will view this line: "DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections." with some skepticism.
However, if not for that part of the COA, then you could theoretically, and quite plausibly, have persons in our various nations who were conscripted prior to the COA, against their philosophical or religious beliefs, and would have no way out.

So until I see an alternative replacement resolution that takes this into account, I am voting AGAINST the repeal.

The replacement being drafted here does provide for that in article III section 4.

Thank you for that.
But I don't think it's good enough in the draft either. A CO could still be forced to kill or otherwise practice violence within those 6 months, even if he or she aquired CO-status on the day that the COA passed.
Not to mention that people's beliefs are not static, and it's quite plausible that some may adopt new beliefs during their service in their nation's military. I find it better to have a few persons falsely attaining CO-status, than to have nations that can potentially force it's own people to kill or commit other acts that could be viewed as atrocious.

Besides, how many people would actually join an army, if they aren't willing to fight?

[Mousebumples]

IN FAVOR.

I don't care much what the repeal text says - so long as it's legal. I look forward to this effort to rescind the effects of this resolution from all WA member nations.

[Eireann Fae]

"Shoving a gun into your citizens' hands and forcing them to go out and kill is not protecting the peoples' civil rights. It is protecting your nation's rights, on a government level. We are here to defend the rights of your pacifist citizens, Ambassador. Not necessarily what's in the best interest of your government."

Yes but in the event of a crisis (such as foreign invasion) a man, even if he does not have the heart to kill for his country, must have the stomach to die for it. It doesn't matter if your "protecting the rights of pacifist citizens" if your nation is getting annexed.

And even if they would recieve some support from the WA in the event of a foreign threat there is no reason to force nations to become dependent on foreign aid.

"No man should be forced to kill, Ambassador, for his country or otherwise. If the man would rather lay down and die, that is his prerogative. If he would rather serve the new regime than kill to defend the old one, that is also his choice. If the man has no will to fight, he will not be of much use to your military, anyway. At best, he will do the minimum necessary for his own survival, and while this may mean that he does indeed follow orders, it could also mean that he simply deserts, striking out on his own - possibly into the arms of the 'liberating' 'enemy'. At worst, he could actively sabotage your nation's efforts from within, embittered by being forced to do something he so strongly opposes."

Rowan takes a sip of water before continuing. "If your nation is invaded, Ambassador, why do you not think your citizens would take up arms in defense of their sovereignty? If you treat your people well enough, they may find it in their hearts to enlist voluntarily and defend your nation's sovereignty against the foreign invaders. A man should not be required to kill for his country, and he certainly should not be required to die for it. If so many citizens are so apathetic or opposed to your government that your nation does get annexed, perhaps that is what the citizens wanted to happen anyway. Just because you could lose your job, Ambassador, doesn't mean you can ask another man to kill for you."

[Cardoness]

The replacement being drafted here does provide for that in article III section 4.

Thank you for that.
But I don't think it's good enough in the draft either. A CO could still be forced to kill or otherwise practice violence within those 6 months, even if he or she aquired CO-status on the day that the COA passed.
Not to mention that people's beliefs are not static, and it's quite plausible that some may adopt new beliefs during their service in their nation's military. I find it better to have a few persons falsely attaining CO-status, than to have nations that can potentially force it's own people to kill or commit other acts that could be viewed as atrocious.

Besides, how many people would actually join an army, if they aren't willing to fight?

I agree, and I have other concerns too. But that is why it is still being drafted and was not submitted to a vote. If you don't like something about it, bring it up and see if you can make a good enough case to have it altered. Once it is submitted it's locked until then it remains open to revision.

[The Euforian Union]

Thank you for that.
But I don't think it's good enough in the draft either. A CO could still be forced to kill or otherwise practice violence within those 6 months, even if he or she aquired CO-status on the day that the COA passed.
Not to mention that people's beliefs are not static, and it's quite plausible that some may adopt new beliefs during their service in their nation's military. I find it better to have a few persons falsely attaining CO-status, than to have nations that can potentially force it's own people to kill or commit other acts that could be viewed as atrocious.

Besides, how many people would actually join an army, if they aren't willing to fight?

I agree, and I have other concerns too. But that is why it is still being drafted and was not submitted to a vote. If you don't like something about it, bring it up and see if you can make a good enough case to have it altered. Once it is submitted it's locked until then it remains open to revision.

Yes, that's good advice.
But I'm happy with the current COA, so I'll wait with coming up with revisions for the MFA draft, until I know whether the repeal of COA will pass or not.

EDIT:
May I inquire about your other concerns, Cardoness?