[Challenge] WA Peacekeeping Charter

[Christian Democrats]

I saw this thread when it was opened on Tuesday night, but I didn't comment because I couldn't make up my mind. Yesterday, I read Auralia's challenge without logging into my account. I still couldn't make up my mind.

In my opinion, this proposal looks as if it wants to establish something like the UN Police:

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/police.shtml

[Christian Democrats]

After giving this matter more thought, I've decided to vote to strike down the proposal. GA#2 prohibits the WA from "participating in armed conflicts." According to the challenged proposal, the WA Peacekeepers' "goal shall be to prevent and end conflict." Based on the rest of the proposal, it's clear to me that the sorts of "conflicts" being discussed are "armed conflicts." Furthermore, preventing and ending conflicts is obviously a form of participation in them.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I wouldn't go so far as to say *preventing* armed conflict is illegal (as the WA does that a lot), but I agree with the "ending" conflict part. We could easily rule it illegal based on that.

I'm sure EP will change that wording, though. In which case, we're back to defining military and police actions.

[Christian Democrats]

I wouldn't go so far as to say *preventing* armed conflict is illegal (as the WA does that a lot), but I agree with the "ending" conflict part. We could easily rule it illegal based on that.

I'm sure EP will change that wording, though. In which case, we're back to defining military and police actions.

Let's just strike it down on narrow grounds now. If a future proposal comes up, we'll consider the more complex issues then.

Do we have four votes for Discarding?

[Sciongrad]

I wouldn't go so far as to say *preventing* armed conflict is illegal (as the WA does that a lot), but I agree with the "ending" conflict part. We could easily rule it illegal based on that.

I'm sure EP will change that wording, though. In which case, we're back to defining military and police actions.

Let's just strike it down on narrow grounds now. If a future proposal comes up, we'll consider the more complex issues then.

Do we have four votes for Discarding?

We don't need to discard it, it looks like it's going to lose. But I'll sign on to a narrow ruling that rules it illegal in its current state. Of course, EP will revise it, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there I guess.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Let's just strike it down on narrow grounds now. If a future proposal comes up, we'll consider the more complex issues then.

Do we have four votes for Discarding?

We don't need to discard it, it looks like it's going to lose. But I'll sign on to a narrow ruling that rules it illegal in its current state. Of course, EP will revise it, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there I guess.

I agree with this.

---

G-R, as to this whole discussion:

I think what he's asking is, what practical difference does the reason for the military/police prohibition make as long as the prohibition exists? Would you honestly interpret something differently if the first part of Article 10 weren't there? A WA anti-pirate navy (for example) is illegal under the latter part, in spite of the first part's stated goal of WA neutrality between states. If he's missing something, I am too.

[Glen-Rhodes]

G-R, as to this whole discussion:

I think what he's asking is, what practical difference does the reason for the military/police prohibition make as long as the prohibition exists? Would you honestly interpret something differently if the first part of Article 10 weren't there? A WA anti-pirate navy (for example) is illegal under the latter part, in spite of the first part's stated goal of WA neutrality between states. If he's missing something, I am too.

The context of the first sentence in that article is what allows the WAHQ to have its own security forces. EP was trying to use WAHQ as a precedent for peacekeepers. But WAHQ is a unique territory owned by the WA itself, so it's not affected by Article 10.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

So the answer to the question is, no practical difference. SoG wasn't arguing for EP's position, he's asking how it matters for this proposal, or for any prospective WA force being mandated to act "off-campus," if there's a neutrality context or no such context. The answer is it doesn't matter. An active WA army violates that article either way. You two have just been talking past each other.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Sergeant Timmons plays Blackbourne response #3. "Ah, Contradiction: Many have claimed that this is a contradiction of GA#2, specifically the military involvement clause. I respectfully disagree. The proposal does not expressly allow the Peacekeepers to participate in armed conflicts or military actions of any kind. It comes down to police actions, but as the police have a wide variety of actions that previous WA organizations have participated partially in, and the Peacekeepers are not supposed to be a police force and are not granted the authority to enforce laws, I maintain that they are not participating in police actions."

OOC: The term 'police actions', in the sort of context given (as GAR#2 lists it between 'military actions' and 'military activities') doesn't mean "the activities of police forces" as such. It's a term that has been used to denote the use of military force in actions that -- because the opposing forces aren't actually organised as or backed by a nation -- aren't [quite] outright warfare: suppressing guerillas, or deterring warlike peoples from a highland area (along the nation's its 'North-West Frontier', perhaps) from raiding the more peaceful -- and tax-paying -- lowlanders, and so on... or, to use an example that might be more familiar to this forum's American members, rounding up bands of "Injuns" who've left the 'reservations' to which they were supposedly restricted.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

If that's the definition of "police actions" we're using, then based on that and my previously stated view that there's a reasonable interpretation that the proposal doesn't mandate WA military action per se, then my opinion is that it's actually legal. (That is, defining "police actions" as "low-level military actions" GAR 2 doesn't prohibit this; only if "police actions" are "actions of the police" does it foreclose this proposal). I'll run through the steps in my opinion either way, but for future reference it would be nice to have a clear answer from the group on that question.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Opinion
First draft
Way too long

We are asked to determine if the proposed resolution "WA Peackeeping Charter," is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States." Article 10 thereof has long been interpreted to be the in-character avatar of the OOC rule against WA armies and police; now that the no-army rule is gone, is there a slender loophole there that this resolution uses to successfully create a limited-scope WA peacekeeping force? I find there is not, and the proposed resolution is illegal.

The full text of GAR 2 / Article 10 reads:

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 apply the longstanding convention that if there is a reasonable interpretation of resolution text under which it could be considered legal, we must interpret it that way. With that in mind, the fact of the proposal repeatedly inveighing against its Peacekeepers' conducting any military actions is sufficient to keep them from constituting a WA military force. Even though some of the mandated actions of this body are traditionally undertaken by military forces, the wording is careful to leave other options open. For example, when the proposal tasks Peacekeepers with "Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces," it's reasonable to imagine the Peacekeepers carrying out the logistical planning, driving armored cars to secure warehouse facilities, doing the melting down of the weapons, etc.; or building housing developments and overseeing job-creating infrastructure projects to ensure demobilized soldiers have the foundation of a life outside of war. Thus the Peacekeepers do (if just barely) avoid "participating in armed conflicts... [and] military activities under the WA banner."

But what about "police actions?" One could argue that "police action" here refers to the RL international studies definition: military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war. This would save the proposal, as "police actions" would simply be just one more kind of military action and therefore outside the scope of the Peacekeepers. But this would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If we were to find the phrase solely used for the international sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

So do the WA Peacekeepers carry out actions of the police? First I note no parallel prohibitions in the proposal against police practices; while it utterly forbids them from carrying out military actions, it does not specifically stop them from being police. So do any of their mandates openly permit or require them to act as police? Would their jobs be made easier by acting as police, thus making it likely they would do so?

I note that Peacekeepers are forbidden from carrying lethal weapons only on WAHQ grounds; permitted to use lethal force in self-defense; and permitted to use non-lethal force on non-state actors without having to invoke self-defense as a justification. They are therefore extremely well-equipped to act as a police force, even against the most well-armed criminal foes.

I further note that they are tasked with the "Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law." One example of such a recognized right is GAR #57 ("Refugee Protection")'s Clause 3:

3. Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, are entitled to full protection under national law, and shall not be arbitrarily expelled once granted asylum.

If there are refugees in a zone in which Peacekeepers have been invited to work, then the Peacekeepers necessarily must uphold their rights under local national law. Peacekeepers are therefore obligated to try to make local authorities respond to, e.g., assault committed against refugees; and if local authorities won't respond (or cannot due to incapacitation or being employed elsewhere), then to respond themselves.

WA law recognizes a right to sexual autonomy, which includes a requirement "that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution..." Therefore Peacekeepers are obligated to act in the place of law enforcement (if it is absent or incompetent) in their deployment zones with regards to sexual crimes.

There being several other rights to which individuals in WA member states are guaranteed, I find that the Peacekeepers cannot possibly escape an obligation to act as a police force. Therefore the proposed resolution contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, and is thus illegal as drafted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I join Sierra Lyricalia's opinion, except for the first paragraph. I do believe that the Peacekeepers are obligated to take actions traditionally undertaken by military forces, and thus violate the terms of Article 10. The resolution language isn't, for me, clear on how the Peacekeepers can avoid military activity while assisting with disarmament and demobilization, knowing that those efforts often require uniformed officers ready to engage in combat with armed militias. It's not narrowly tailored enough, in my opinion, to avoid violation of Article 10.

[Separatist Peoples]

I join Sierra Lyricalia's opinion, except for the first paragraph. I do believe that the Peacekeepers are obligated to take actions traditionally undertaken by military forces, and thus violate the terms of Article 10. The resolution language isn't, for me, clear on how the Peacekeepers can avoid military activity while assisting with disarmament and demobilization, knowing that those efforts often require uniformed officers ready to engage in combat with armed militias. It's not narrowly tailored enough, in my opinion, to avoid violation of Article 10.

I hate to just drop in a +1, but I really do agree with GR regarding clause 1. It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. Just because the proposal called it a Smallish Quacking Waterchicken doesn't mean it's not just a duck in a fancy feather suit. It trips the military rule, too.

[Kryozerkia]

Damn, that's long, Sierra. Brevity is your friend.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Some "friend" - it always runs away screaming when I try to say hi!

But yes, I will trim, edit, and possibly spoiler some things.

[Separatist Peoples]

Some "friend" - it always runs away screaming when I try to say hi!

But yes, I will trim, edit, and possibly spoiler some things.

Do you need to include the text from GAR2 in its entirety? Might save some space by limiting block quotes.

[Bears Armed]

I'll try to get a statement about my reason for considering the proposal illegal -- which hinge on the fact that an armed force with a duty to uphold WA law is likely to find itself drawn into 'police actions' in the narrower sense during at least some peacekeeping missions, because the leaders of a side that agrees to peacekeepers presence may not always be able to control all of its forces properly after that agreement becomes public (breakway hardliners who say "the war continues", pro-invasion locals in an invaded nation who feel betrayed by the peace, irregulars who were really there largely for the looting opportunities, mercenaries or even regulars who get dismissed without all of the pay that they were due, etc) and those 'non-state actors' are then quite likely to ignore some WA resolutions -- formally written-out for tomorrow.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Second draft
Shorter, but not short

We are asked to determine if the proposed resolution "WA Peacekeeping Charter," is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States." Article 10 thereof has long been interpreted as the in-character avatar of the OOC rule against WA armies and police; now that the no-army rule is gone, does this resolution find some slender loophole there to create a legal WA peacekeeping force? I find it does not, and is thereby illegal.

I apply the convention that if there is a reasonable interpretation of resolution text under which it could be considered legal, we must interpret it that way. In that light the fact of the proposal repeatedly inveighing against its Peacekeepers' conducting any military actions is enough to keep them from being a WA military force. Even though some of the mandates are traditionally done by military forces, the wording is careful to leave other options open. For example, when the proposal tasks Peacekeepers with "Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces," one can easily imagine the Peacekeepers doing the logistical planning, driving armored cars to secure warehouses, melting down the weapons, etc.; or running job-creating housing and infrastructure projects to ensure demobilized soldiers have the foundation of a life outside of war. Thus the Peacekeepers do (if just barely) avoid "participating in armed conflicts... [and] military activities under the WA banner."

But what about police? One could argue that "police action" in GAR #2, Article 10 refers to the RL international studies definition: military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war. This would save the proposal, as "police actions" would be just a subset of military actions and therefore outside the scope of the Peacekeepers. But this would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

The proposal doesn't prohibit police practices; while it bars Peacekeepers from military actions, it does not stop them from acting as police. Also, Peacekeepers are forbidden from carrying lethal weapons only on WAHQ grounds; permitted to use lethal force in self-defense; and permitted to use non-lethal force on non-state actors even outside of self-defense. They are therefore abundantly equipped to act as a police force, even against the most well-armed criminal foes.

Peacekeepers are tasked with the "Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law." Not only this task, but the very nature of their deployment means the Peacekeepers are guaranteed to find themselves as the only legitimate law enforcement authorities in certain areas. Armistice and cease-fire agreements often involve the creation of neutral or demilitarized zones; even where national authority is retained, though, Peacekeepers will sooner or later find themselves acting as police:

"Refugee Protection," Clause 3:

3. Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, are entitled to full protection under national law, and shall not be arbitrarily expelled once granted asylum.

If there are refugees in a zone in which Peacekeepers have been invited to work, then the Peacekeepers necessarily must uphold their rights under local national law. If national law prohibits unprovoked assault, then Peacekeepers are obligated to try to make local authorities respond to such assaults; and if local authorities won't respond, then to respond themselves. In the heat of the moment, Peacekeepers must act. They have the weapons, and they wouldn't be keeping the peace (or "Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions") if they stood by and let a lynch mob carry out its vile plans.

WA law recognizes a right to sexual autonomy, which includes a requirement "that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution..." Therefore Peacekeepers are obligated to act as law enforcement in their deployment zones with regard to sexual crimes. This may include stopping assaults in progress; it may mean actively carrying out investigations where national law enforcement is overworked or undermotivated - as, indeed, they are likely to be shortly following a war.

There being several other rights which individuals in WA member states are guaranteed, it's clear that the Peacekeepers cannot possibly escape an obligation to act as a police force. Therefore the proposed resolution contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, and is thus illegal as drafted.

[Bears Armed]

My opinion:

We have been asked to determine whether the proposed resolution

WA Peacekeeping Charter
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

Description: The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing prevention of conflict or restoration of peacetime activities to be one of the foremost goals of this august body, and that an international organization dedicated to this effort would be of great use,

Reaffirming prior resolutions preventing the WA from becoming a military force used as a tool against those the majority of WA voters do not like,

Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, citizens thereof, or organizations affiliated with such states, for any reason whatsoever;

Prohibits WA personnel from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. WA personnel are committee members and employees of the WA.

Article II - Scope of Peacekeeping Operations and Standards

Establishes the WA Peacekeepers, whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace. Peacekeepers shall adhere to these principles:
• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No peacekeeping effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. Peacekeepers shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, Peacekeepers are to refrain from using lethal force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons. Peacekeepers are to avoid using non-lethal force on state actors.

Tasks the WA Peacekeepers with the following duties:
• Assistance in reintegrating former combatants back into civilian society
• Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces,
• Organization of elections or government reorganization or establishment, or monitoring thereof
• Monitoring the fulfillment of obligations created by armistices or ceasefires
• Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law
• Assistance in international mediation and resolving potential causes for international conflict

Prohibits the WA from expanding the role of the WA Peacekeepers to include any efforts that cannot be considered one of the above duties;

Further tasks Peacekeepers with:
• Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions
• Actively involving national and local governments in its operations to promote personal ownership over the success of Peacekeeping operations
• Forming clear and achievable mandates in Peacekeeping efforts;

Authorizes the WA Peacekeepers to:
• request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,
• conduct research into safe and effective non-lethal weapons systems, armor, and defense technologies to increase the safety of WA personnel

Clarifies that the WA Peacekeepers are not a military force, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support Peacekeeping efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA peacekeeping efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.

is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2,

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the World Assembly.

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus international law passed by this World Assembly. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the World Assembly of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of WA States:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

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.

Section II:

Rights and Duties in War:

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

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

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.

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

because Article #10 of the latter has been considered an IC manifestation of the OOC rule against WA armies and police.

My opinion

Firstly, I think that GAR #2 — unlike the longstanding, but quite recently scrapped, ‘No WA Military or Police’ rule, does not forbid the creation of a WA police force. This is because its only use of the term “police” is as a part of the term “police actions” in the context of

armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities

and I interpret ‘police actions’ (at least in that context) as being used in the sense that it can be used in RL to refer to [basically] the use of military force against ‘non-state actors’.
Secondly, I accept in most respects the author’s suggestion that the assigned duties can be performed in ways limited to non-‘military’ ones, especially, with the proposal’s own prohibition on these peacekeepers being used as a military force.

HOWEVER…
1/ History teaches us that when the leaders of forces involved in a conflict agree to peace -- as this proposal would require before WA peacekeepers can be sent in -- they may lose control of some elements from those forces (e.g. hardline rebels who insist that “The war continues”, partisans and/or militia within occupied or otherwise-disputed territories who object strongly to the likely post-conflict disposition of those lands, irregulars who turned up due to religious fanaticism or historical hatreds or simply for the plundering opportunities, mercenaries — and perhaps even some of their own regular troops — whom they try to dismiss without the full payment due, and so on…), resulting in at least a local continuation of hostilities;
2/ Such forces, not being representatives of an internationally recognised government, are unlikely to consider themselves bound by international legislation;
AND
2/ Peacekeepers carrying out their listed duty of

Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law

within areas where such forces are still active, even if the peacekeepers restrict themselves to a ‘police’ role that would not in itself breach GAR #2, are therefore effectively going to be participating in a ‘police action’ even in the narrow sense and are therefore going to be operating in violation of GAR #2.

THUS,
I conclude that this proposal is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2…
But that’s a fairly minor violation, significantly less than I originally thought would be the case, and could be fixed by adding a qualifier along the lines of “except within areas where armed conflict is still taking place” to the description of the duty in question.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm inclined to join with SL based on the focus on the military violation, rather than the police violation. No offense, BA.

[Christian Democrats]

I hate to be a buzzkill, but I think a really short opinion would be sufficient to dispose of this case:

We have been asked to determine whether the proposal WA Peacekeeping Charter contradicts Resolution 2: Rights and Duties of WA States. We hold that there is a contradiction.

According to Resolution 2, Article 10, "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" (emphasis added). According to the challenged proposal, the WA Peacekeepers' "goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace" (emphasis added). From the surrounding text, it is clear that the type of "conflict" being addressed is armed conflict. One cannot "prevent and end" armed conflict without "participating" in it. In other words, the challenged proposal's stated goal violates the prohibition of Resolution 2. The Contradiction Rule has been broken.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If the majority opinion is that the contradiction of GAR #2 / Art. 10 is military in nature, I respectfully disagree; my concurring opinion, based solely on the police contradiction, is below and final. SP, my entire view is that there is no unavoidable military contradiction, so I'm honestly not sure what you could possibly be joining with me on, though I'll happily accept your company.

We are asked to determine if the proposed resolution "WA Peacekeeping Charter," is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States." Article 10 thereof has long been interpreted as the in-character avatar of the OOC rule against WA armies and police; now that the no-army rule is gone, does this resolution find some slender loophole there to create a legal WA peacekeeping force? I find it does not, and is thereby illegal.

If there is a reasonable interpretation of resolution text under which it could be considered legal, I believe we must interpret it that way. The proposal repeatedly inveighs against its Peacekeepers' conducting any military actions; I take it at its word.

Even though some of the mandates are traditionally done by military forces, the wording is careful to leave other options open. For example, when the proposal tasks Peacekeepers with "Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces," one can easily imagine the Peacekeepers doing the logistical planning, driving armored cars to secure warehouses, melting down the weapons, etc.; or running job-creating housing and infrastructure projects to ensure demobilized soldiers have the foundation of a life outside of war.

Thus the Peacekeepers do (if just barely) avoid "participating in armed conflicts... [and] military activities under the WA banner."

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

The abundantly armed Peacekeepers are tasked with the "Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law." They also do not have many constraints on when they may use force. Not only the particular mandate, but the very nature of their deployment means the Peacekeepers are guaranteed to find themselves as the only legitimate law enforcement authorities in certain areas. Armistice and cease-fire agreements often involve the creation of neutral or demilitarized zones; even where national authority is retained, though, Peacekeepers will sooner or later find themselves acting as police:

"Refugee Protection," Clause 3:

3. Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, are entitled to full protection under national law, and shall not be arbitrarily expelled once granted asylum.

If there are refugees in a zone in which Peacekeepers have been invited to work, then the Peacekeepers necessarily must uphold their rights under local national law. If national law prohibits unprovoked assault, then Peacekeepers are obligated to try to make local authorities respond to such assaults; and if local authorities won't respond, then to respond themselves. In the heat of the moment, Peacekeepers must act. They have the weapons, and they wouldn't be keeping the peace (or "Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions") if they stood by and let a lynch mob carry out its vile plans.

WA law recognizes a right to sexual autonomy, which includes a requirement "that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution..." Therefore Peacekeepers are obligated to act as law enforcement in their deployment zones with regard to sexual crimes. This may include stopping assaults in progress; it may mean actively carrying out investigations where national law enforcement is overworked or undermotivated - as, indeed, they are likely to be shortly following a war.

There being several other rights which individuals in WA member states are guaranteed, it's clear that the Peacekeepers cannot possibly escape an obligation to act as a police force. Therefore the proposed resolution contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, and is thus illegal as drafted.

[Separatist Peoples]

If the majority opinion is that the contradiction of GAR #2 / Art. 10 is military in nature, I respectfully disagree; my concurring opinion, based solely on the police contradiction, is below and final. SP, my entire view is that there is no unavoidable military contradiction, so I'm honestly not sure what you could possibly be joining with me on, though I'll happily accept your company.

We are asked to determine if the proposed resolution "WA Peacekeeping Charter," is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States." Article 10 thereof has long been interpreted as the in-character avatar of the OOC rule against WA armies and police; now that the no-army rule is gone, does this resolution find some slender loophole there to create a legal WA peacekeeping force? I find it does not, and is thereby illegal.

If there is a reasonable interpretation of resolution text under which it could be considered legal, I believe we must interpret it that way. The proposal repeatedly inveighs against its Peacekeepers' conducting any military actions; I take it at its word.

Even though some of the mandates are traditionally done by military forces, the wording is careful to leave other options open. For example, when the proposal tasks Peacekeepers with "Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces," one can easily imagine the Peacekeepers doing the logistical planning, driving armored cars to secure warehouses, melting down the weapons, etc.; or running job-creating housing and infrastructure projects to ensure demobilized soldiers have the foundation of a life outside of war.

Thus the Peacekeepers do (if just barely) avoid "participating in armed conflicts... [and] military activities under the WA banner."

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

The abundantly armed Peacekeepers are tasked with the "Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law." They also do not have many constraints on when they may use force. Not only the particular mandate, but the very nature of their deployment means the Peacekeepers are guaranteed to find themselves as the only legitimate law enforcement authorities in certain areas. Armistice and cease-fire agreements often involve the creation of neutral or demilitarized zones; even where national authority is retained, though, Peacekeepers will sooner or later find themselves acting as police:

"Refugee Protection," Clause 3:

3. Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, are entitled to full protection under national law, and shall not be arbitrarily expelled once granted asylum.

If there are refugees in a zone in which Peacekeepers have been invited to work, then the Peacekeepers necessarily must uphold their rights under local national law. If national law prohibits unprovoked assault, then Peacekeepers are obligated to try to make local authorities respond to such assaults; and if local authorities won't respond, then to respond themselves. In the heat of the moment, Peacekeepers must act. They have the weapons, and they wouldn't be keeping the peace (or "Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions") if they stood by and let a lynch mob carry out its vile plans.

WA law recognizes a right to sexual autonomy, which includes a requirement "that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution..." Therefore Peacekeepers are obligated to act as law enforcement in their deployment zones with regard to sexual crimes. This may include stopping assaults in progress; it may mean actively carrying out investigations where national law enforcement is overworked or undermotivated - as, indeed, they are likely to be shortly following a war.

There being several other rights which individuals in WA member states are guaranteed, it's clear that the Peacekeepers cannot possibly escape an obligation to act as a police force. Therefore the proposed resolution contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, and is thus illegal as drafted.

Thats what I meant. I got it mixed up when I responded. Sorry...

[Glen-Rhodes]

I agree the most with CD's opinion. If SL is going to write a concurrence, I'll join with CD rather than SL for a majority opinion.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Alright, so once again we have three separate two-person opinions, though at least this time we're unanimous on the actual legality question. Might as well do this in alphabetical order, then. I'll hold off posting this in the public challenge thread until Scion votes, and until Bears and CD either post final drafts or say that these are final. Feels like I'm forgetting something, but that's par.


*** Official Ruling of the Secretariat ***

The Secretariat has unanimously ruled that the proposal is illegal, by way of three separate concurring opinions.

Bears Armed:

We have been asked to determine whether the proposed resolution

WA Peacekeeping Charter
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

Description: The Assembly of Worlds,

Believing prevention of conflict or restoration of peacetime activities to be one of the foremost goals of this august body, and that an international organization dedicated to this effort would be of great use,

Reaffirming prior resolutions preventing the WA from becoming a military force used as a tool against those the majority of WA voters do not like,

Article I - Restrictions on WA Force

Prohibits any WA organizations or committees from engaging in offensive military actions with any WA member states, citizens thereof, or organizations affiliated with such states, for any reason whatsoever;

Prohibits WA personnel from carrying lethal weapons on WAHQ property. WA personnel are committee members and employees of the WA.

Article II - Scope of Peacekeeping Operations and Standards

Establishes the WA Peacekeepers, whose goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace. Peacekeepers shall adhere to these principles:
• Consent of all parties involved in its operations. No peacekeeping effort shall be made without the consent of all WA member nations involved, and without the request of at least one member nation involved.
• Impartiality in proceedings and conflicts. Peacekeepers shall maintain professionalism at all times and give equal consideration to the involved parties.
• Non-use of force. Except in cases of self defense, Peacekeepers are to refrain from using lethal force, and shall be prohibited from carrying lethal weapons. Peacekeepers are to avoid using non-lethal force on state actors.

Tasks the WA Peacekeepers with the following duties:
• Assistance in reintegrating former combatants back into civilian society
• Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces,
• Organization of elections or government reorganization or establishment, or monitoring thereof
• Monitoring the fulfillment of obligations created by armistices or ceasefires
• Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law
• Assistance in international mediation and resolving potential causes for international conflict

Prohibits the WA from expanding the role of the WA Peacekeepers to include any efforts that cannot be considered one of the above duties;

Further tasks Peacekeepers with:
• Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions
• Actively involving national and local governments in its operations to promote personal ownership over the success of Peacekeeping operations
• Forming clear and achievable mandates in Peacekeeping efforts;

Authorizes the WA Peacekeepers to:
• request appropriate WA funds to support its operations,
• conduct research into safe and effective non-lethal weapons systems, armor, and defense technologies to increase the safety of WA personnel

Clarifies that the WA Peacekeepers are not a military force, nor are they ever to be used as such,

Article III - Responsibility of Member Nation-States

Encourages WA Member nations to make a genuine commitment to maintaining peace, maintain a Unity of Purpose with the WA, actively support Peacekeeping efforts where possible, refrain from hindering WA operations or movement, and communicate effectively with WA personnel

Prohibits member nations from using WA organizations or committees to defend themselves from other nations, from fraudulently requesting WA peacekeeping efforts, and from intentionally launching military, terrorist, or criminal attacks against WA property or officials.

is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2,

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the World Assembly.

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus international law passed by this World Assembly. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the World Assembly of NationStates.

A Declaration on Rights and Duties of WA States:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

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.

Section II:

Rights and Duties in War:

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

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

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.

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

because Article #10 of the latter has been considered an IC manifestation of the OOC rule against WA armies and police.

My opinion

Firstly, I think that GAR #2 — unlike the longstanding, but quite recently scrapped, ‘No WA Military or Police’ rule, does not forbid the creation of a WA police force. This is because its only use of the term “police” is as a part of the term “police actions” in the context of

armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities

and I interpret ‘police actions’ (at least in that context) as being used in the sense that it can be used in RL to refer to [basically] the use of military force against ‘non-state actors’.
Secondly, I accept in most respects the author’s suggestion that the assigned duties can be performed in ways limited to non-‘military’ ones, especially, with the proposal’s own prohibition on these peacekeepers being used as a military force.

HOWEVER…
1/ History teaches us that when the leaders of forces involved in a conflict agree to peace -- as this proposal would require before WA peacekeepers can be sent in -- they may lose control of some elements from those forces (e.g. hardline rebels who insist that “The war continues”, partisans and/or militia within occupied or otherwise-disputed territories who object strongly to the likely post-conflict disposition of those lands, irregulars who turned up due to religious fanaticism or historical hatreds or simply for the plundering opportunities, mercenaries — and perhaps even some of their own regular troops — whom they try to dismiss without the full payment due, and so on…), resulting in at least a local continuation of hostilities;
2/ Such forces, not being representatives of an internationally recognised government, are unlikely to consider themselves bound by international legislation;
AND
2/ Peacekeepers carrying out their listed duty of

Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law

within areas where such forces are still active, even if the peacekeepers restrict themselves to a ‘police’ role that would not in itself breach GAR #2, are therefore effectively going to be participating in a ‘police action’ even in the narrow sense and are therefore going to be operating in violation of GAR #2.

THUS,
I conclude that this proposal is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2…
But that’s a fairly minor violation, significantly less than I originally thought would be the case, and could be fixed by adding a qualifier along the lines of “except within areas where armed conflict is still taking place” to the description of the duty in question.

Christian Democrats, joined by Glen-Rhodes:

We have been asked to determine whether the proposal WA Peacekeeping Charter contradicts Resolution 2: Rights and Duties of WA States. We hold that there is a contradiction.

According to Resolution 2, Article 10, "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" (emphasis added). According to the challenged proposal, the WA Peacekeepers' "goal shall be to prevent and end conflict, and preserve peace" (emphasis added). From the surrounding text, it is clear that the type of "conflict" being addressed is armed conflict. One cannot "prevent and end" armed conflict without "participating" in it. In other words, the challenged proposal's stated goal violates the prohibition of Resolution 2. The Contradiction Rule has been broken.

Sierra Lyricalia, joined by Separatist Peoples:

We are asked to determine if the proposed resolution "WA Peacekeeping Charter," is illegal for contradiction of GAR #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States." Article 10 thereof has long been interpreted as the in-character avatar of the OOC rule against WA armies and police; now that the no-army rule is gone, does this resolution find some slender loophole there to create a legal WA peacekeeping force? I find it does not, and is thereby illegal.

If there is a reasonable interpretation of resolution text under which it could be considered legal, I believe we must interpret it that way. The proposal repeatedly inveighs against its Peacekeepers' conducting any military actions; I take it at its word.

Even though some of the mandates are traditionally done by military forces, the wording is careful to leave other options open. For example, when the proposal tasks Peacekeepers with "Assistance in disarmament and demobilizing of military forces," one can easily imagine the Peacekeepers doing the logistical planning, driving armored cars to secure warehouses, melting down the weapons, etc.; or running job-creating housing and infrastructure projects to ensure demobilized soldiers have the foundation of a life outside of war.

Thus the Peacekeepers do (if just barely) avoid "participating in armed conflicts... [and] military activities under the WA banner."

GAR #2, Article 10 refers to "police actions;" is this the RL international studies definition - military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war? This interpretation would ignore the entire history of GAR 2: not only a WA military, but WA police were forbidden. The entire point of that article was to rule out both military and police actions, the latter clearly meaning simply "actions taken by the police." If the phrase were solely used for the military sense, that would mean that a WA police force has actually been legal for most of a decade. I reject that absurd result and use the mundane "police action" = "actions of police."

The abundantly armed Peacekeepers are tasked with the "Protection of the WA-recognized rights of citizens of member nations and support for the rule of law." They also do not have many constraints on when they may use force. Not only the particular mandate, but the very nature of their deployment means the Peacekeepers are guaranteed to find themselves as the only legitimate law enforcement authorities in certain areas. Armistice and cease-fire agreements often involve the creation of neutral or demilitarized zones; even where national authority is retained, though, Peacekeepers will sooner or later find themselves acting as police:

"Refugee Protection," Clause 3:

3. Refugees shall not be discriminated against by reason only of their status as refugees, are entitled to full protection under national law, and shall not be arbitrarily expelled once granted asylum.

If there are refugees in a zone in which Peacekeepers have been invited to work, then the Peacekeepers necessarily must uphold their rights under local national law. If national law prohibits unprovoked assault, then Peacekeepers are obligated to try to make local authorities respond to such assaults; and if local authorities won't respond, then to respond themselves. In the heat of the moment, Peacekeepers must act. They have the weapons, and they wouldn't be keeping the peace (or "Maintaining the legitimacy of WA actions") if they stood by and let a lynch mob carry out its vile plans.

WA law recognizes a right to sexual autonomy, which includes a requirement "that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution..." Therefore Peacekeepers are obligated to act as law enforcement in their deployment zones with regard to sexual crimes. This may include stopping assaults in progress; it may mean actively carrying out investigations where national law enforcement is overworked or undermotivated - as, indeed, they are likely to be shortly following a war.

There being several other rights which individuals in WA member states are guaranteed, it's clear that the Peacekeepers cannot possibly escape an obligation to act as a police force. Therefore the proposed resolution contradicts GAR 2, Article 10, and is thus illegal as drafted.

[Sciongrad]

Sorry for the delayed reply. I join SL's opinion.