[FINAL CALL ] The Convention on Loitering Munitions

[Datin]

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the rapid pace of innovation regarding loitering munitions and autonomous technologies in modern warfare across land, sea, and air,

Deeply concerned by the moral, ethical, legal, and humanitarian implications of these weapons, particularly their severe danger to non-military targets,

Hereby:

1) Defines "Loitering Munitions" (LM) as an unmanned weapon system equipped with a built-in warhead that flies to a designated target zone and waits passively in the air until a target is found or confirmed;

2) Defines military facilities and targets as: air bases used for military aviation, aircraft maintenance, and air power; naval bases used to repair, refit, store, or decommission naval ships, or to shelter fleet ships, submarines, and maritime support ships; army posts and forts used as administrative headquarters, training grounds, and barracks for ground troops; logistics and supply depots holding fuel, food, and military hardware for deployment; and forward operating bases;

3) Defines non-military facilities and targets as: critical infrastructure like power plants (solar, natural gas, nuclear, wind), water treatment and desalination plants, and telecommunications hubs; civilian airports and air traffic control centers; public shipyards, seaports, and railway stations; major highway interchanges, bridges, and public tunnels; public and private universities, schools, and colleges; space observation centers; and cultural and heritage sites;

4) Mandates that any military personnel, or crews of military vehicles across land, sea, and air, rendered hors de combat (incapacitated, wounded, or surrendered) shall immediately become strictly prohibited targets for Loitering Munitions;

5) Requires that upon identifying a target as hors de combat or non-military in nature, operators must immediately abort, redirect, or cancel any planned or active strike;

6) Obligates the deploying forces to utilize the surveillance capabilities of the LM to log and transmit the coordinates of hors de combat personnel to appropriate authorities, facilitating medical evacuation or the lawful taking of Prisoners of War;

7) Restricts the use of Loitering Munitions in maritime or aerial combat environments strictly to positively identified military objectives, such as warships, convoys, and military cargo aircraft actively transporting military supplies;

8 ) Prohibits the targeting of civilian merchant vessels, civilian aircraft, and military cargo planes confirmed to be carrying humanitarian aid, and establishes that any naval or aerial convoy whose military status or cargo cannot be positively confirmed must be presumed civilian and exempt from LM engagement;

9) Directs that in the event a Loitering Munition loses communication with its operator, the system must automatically execute a fail-safe protocol to either safely self-terminate in an area verified to be free of civilians, or attempt a non-lethal landing.

[Slavstonia]

Here's a detailed report on how a drone works-
Most modern drones have three step steps/phases, namely the launch/glide phase, the loiter phase, and the kill phase, its the second phase that makes it unique. During the loiter phase, the drone discriminates among the targets, and the operator has the final say whether the drone shall hit the target or not, the introductory paragraph mentions about collateral damage, but in this case, it is virtually nullified, moreover, most modern drones have a built-in self destruct, or a back to home feature, and I would suggest changing 'velocity' to 'pace' (probably within the first three lines. (I have more to add lol)

[Datin]

Here's a detailed report on how a drone works-
Most modern drones have three step steps/phases, namely the launch/glide phase, the loiter phase, and the kill phase, its the second phase that makes it unique. During the loiter phase, the drone discriminates among the targets, and the operator has the final say whether the drone shall hit the target or not, the introductory paragraph mentions about collateral damage, but in this case, it is virtually nullified, moreover, most modern drones have a built-in self destruct, or a back to home feature, and I would suggest changing 'velocity' to 'pace' (probably within the first three lines. (I have more to add lol)

" hello Slavstonia we completely agree that some Advanced Air Forces add safety mechanics into there LM and my proposal codify it to reassure that all Nations add the safety mechanics to protect civilian based personnel and we will take the suggestion on the grammar. Thank you for the criticism!"

[Slavstonia]

And as an added piece of info, LMs are used from land, sea, and AIR too (your proposal mentioned only about land and sea, which makes UCAVs quite immune to this resolution)

[Lipizia]

Summing up:
Why should I care of people I am bombing? This has no sence. We both agree to not destroy hospitals, but this is an assurdity. At this point, forbide war.
Against.

[Datin]

And as an added piece of info, LMs are used from land, sea, and AIR too (your proposal mentioned only about land and sea, which makes UCAVs quite immune to this resolution)

"Thank you for catching out that air loophole I will update to deal with the air Gap!"

[Zetaopalatopia]

And what of weapons that have no ability to tell the state of or faction of a target? Proximity triggered like pop-up mines and heat signature only tracking? Nothing in your definition defines the need for post launch operations. And what if the operating person or animal is non human. Are non human nations exempt?

[Datin]

And what of weapons that have no ability to tell the state of or faction of a target? Proximity triggered like pop-up mines and heat signature only tracking? Nothing in your definition defines the need for post launch operations. And what if the operating person or animal is non human. Are non human nations exempt?

hello and thank you for pointing out the operating loophole, i have dealt with it

[Rosettan Overwatch]

We love the idea, but against.

If you can stretch the definition enough, an autonomous war vessel can be considered a loitering munition. ...Plus, we also need LOITMUNs for casualty-less base knockouts, especially when dealing with Al'Shamir Front remnants.

/ed; also, grammar...

[Palmyrion]

1) Defines "Loitering Munitions" (LM) as an unmanned weapon system equipped with a built-in warhead that flies to a designated target zone;

Too broad. Cruise missiles, ICBMs, SRBMs, IRBMs, whateverBMs, etc., all are unmanned weapons systems equipped with built-in warheads flying to designated target zones.

2) Mandates that any military personnel, or crews of military vehicles across land, sea, and air, rendered hors de combat (incapacitated, wounded, or surrendered) shall immediately become strictly prohibited targets for Loitering Munitions

Hors de combat personnel are already strictly prohibited targets by default, and this applies to any weapon past, present, and future.

3) Requires that upon identifying a target as hors de combat or non-military in nature, operators must immediately abort, redirect, or cancel any planned or active strike;

Identification of hors de combat personnel should have been done during the reconnaissance and observation phases of the kill web, not during the in-flight target acquisition phase and especially not the terminal attack phase (in both cases, you get a wasted LOITMUN in the former, and it is too late to stop a LOITMUN in the terminal attack phase in the latter). But I see your point, somewhat.

4) Obligates the deploying forces to utilize the surveillance capabilities of the LM to log and transmit the coordinates of hors de combat personnel to appropriate authorities, facilitating medical evacuation or the lawful taking of Prisoners of War

See my objection to (3). You use other sources of intelligence, recon, and observation to pinpoint hors de combat personnel in the first place, before ordering the LOITMUN strike; you do not use the LOITMUN's target acquisition and tracking suite to do this.

5) Restricts the use of Loitering Munitions in maritime or aerial combat environments strictly to positively identified military objectives, such as warships, convoys, and military cargo aircraft actively transporting military supplies

The threshold for positive ID can be wildly arbitrary in a case-by-case basis.

6) Prohibits the targeting of civilian merchant vessels, civilian aircraft, and military cargo planes confirmed to be carrying humanitarian aid, and establishes that any naval or aerial convoy whose military status or cargo cannot be positively confirmed must be presumed civilian and exempt from LM engagement

You know protection of civilian merchant vessels, civilian aircraft, and military cargo planes carrying HADR aid and assets is covered by international law, against any weapon past present and future, right?

7) Directs that in the event a Loitering Munition loses communication with its operator, the system must automatically execute a fail-safe protocol to either safely self-terminate in an area verified to be free of civilians, or attempt a non-lethal landing.

Most drones already have a self-destruct or a back to home feature, as Slavstonia pointed out.

AGAINST.

[Kshemarashtram]

I see you have already submitted it, but you should draft it on the forums for a longer time, and make changes based on feedback received, before submitting it.

Also, in your submitted proposal, "Category: Global Security" is part of the proposal text, but as far as I'm aware, the GA doesn't assign categories to resolutions. Maybe it did in the past, but certainly not now.

[Datin]

1) Defines "Loitering Munitions" (LM) as an unmanned weapon system equipped with a built-in warhead that flies to a designated target zone;

Too broad. Cruise missiles, ICBMs, SRBMs, IRBMs, whateverBMs, etc., all are unmanned weapons systems equipped with built-in warheads flying to designated target zones.

2) Mandates that any military personnel, or crews of military vehicles across land, sea, and air, rendered hors de combat (incapacitated, wounded, or surrendered) shall immediately become strictly prohibited targets for Loitering Munitions

Hors de combat personnel are already strictly prohibited targets by default, and this applies to any weapon past, present, and future.

3) Requires that upon identifying a target as hors de combat or non-military in nature, operators must immediately abort, redirect, or cancel any planned or active strike;

Identification of hors de combat personnel should have been done during the reconnaissance and observation phases of the kill web, not during the in-flight target acquisition phase and especially not the terminal attack phase (in both cases, you get a wasted LOITMUN in the former, and it is too late to stop a LOITMUN in the terminal attack phase in the latter). But I see your point, somewhat.

4) Obligates the deploying forces to utilize the surveillance capabilities of the LM to log and transmit the coordinates of hors de combat personnel to appropriate authorities, facilitating medical evacuation or the lawful taking of Prisoners of War

See my objection to (3). You use other sources of intelligence, recon, and observation to pinpoint hors de combat personnel in the first place, before ordering the LOITMUN strike; you do not use the LOITMUN's target acquisition and tracking suite to do this.

5) Restricts the use of Loitering Munitions in maritime or aerial combat environments strictly to positively identified military objectives, such as warships, convoys, and military cargo aircraft actively transporting military supplies

The threshold for positive ID can be wildly arbitrary in a case-by-case basis.

6) Prohibits the targeting of civilian merchant vessels, civilian aircraft, and military cargo planes confirmed to be carrying humanitarian aid, and establishes that any naval or aerial convoy whose military status or cargo cannot be positively confirmed must be presumed civilian and exempt from LM engagement

You know protection of civilian merchant vessels, civilian aircraft, and military cargo planes carrying HADR aid and assets is covered by international law, against any weapon past present and future, right?

7) Directs that in the event a Loitering Munition loses communication with its operator, the system must automatically execute a fail-safe protocol to either safely self-terminate in an area verified to be free of civilians, or attempt a non-lethal landing.

Most drones already have a self-destruct or a back to home feature, as Slavstonia pointed out.

AGAINST.

Hello Palmyrion!

The intent of the 1st clause is to capture any flying munition that "loiters" in a zone. If a nation wants to use an ICBM as a loitering munition, it should be subject to the same strict humanitarian rules as drones.

For Clauses 6 and 2: While in the real world there is international law that protects these targets, in the General Assembly there are no specific laws for Loitering Munitions.

For Clauses 3 and 4: Loitering munitions are used by operators to search for targets of opportunity. If an operator finds a wounded soldier via the LM's camera while it is loitering, they are obligated to use that intelligence to prevent a strike or aid evacuation.

For Clause 7: Common practice is not international law. Clause 7 will make these fail-safes a universal legal mandate.

[Heavens Reach]

Completely AI generating this without so much as revising it and then submitting it a day later after rejecting all feedback is certainly a strategy one could employ. Not sure why one would, but here we are.

[Datin]

Completely AI generating this without so much as revising it and then submitting it a day later after rejecting all feedback is certainly a strategy one could employ. Not sure why one would, but here we are.

Hello Heavens Reach!

On the feedback part, I actually submitted the draft to the queue before they encouraged me to wait so I could improve the bill. I didn't reject the feedback; the text was just already locked! As for the AI part, I only used AI to help with research and grammar checking. But with the bill in the World Assembly, I will withdraw the bill soon so I can get more feedback for the revision.

[Fortis Virtute]

Once this comes back to the drafting stage, as I would assume it would (as it currently stands I do not think this would pass)...

I would like to mention I think it might be worthwhile to explore clearly defining the difference between military and non-military facilities and groups. We have seen it time and time again that without a strict definition, anyone can personally justify attacking certain places or groups because THEY define it is a military threat, even if, from an international and/or moral standpoint, it is clearly not a military threat.

[Heavens Reach]

Completely AI generating this without so much as revising it and then submitting it a day later after rejecting all feedback is certainly a strategy one could employ. Not sure why one would, but here we are.

Hello Heavens Reach!

On the feedback part, I actually submitted the draft to the queue before they encouraged me to wait so I could improve the bill. I didn't reject the feedback; the text was just already locked! As for the AI part, I only used AI to help with research and grammar checking. But with the bill in the World Assembly, I will withdraw the bill soon so I can get more feedback for the revision.

I will believe this if you post the draft pre-AI.

[Datin]

Once this comes back to the drafting stage, as I would assume it would (as it currently stands I do not think this would pass)...

I would like to mention I think it might be worthwhile to explore clearly defining the difference between military and non-military facilities and groups. We have seen it time and time again that without a strict definition, anyone can personally justify attacking certain places or groups because THEY define it is a military threat, even if, from an international and/or moral standpoint, it is clearly not a military threat.

hello Fortis Virtute!, thank you for pointing out that defining loophole, i will deal with it and fix it