[SUBMITTED] World Assembly WMD Accord

[Aetrina]

War will be waged and unspeakable death and horror will be evidenced regardless of this esteemed body's attempt to restrict it. Even a incredibly large army equipped with only sticks can cause widespread devastation to an enemy. We apologize for re-entering into this debate. We only wished to provide a new perspective.

[Grand America]

War will be waged and unspeakable death and horror will be evidenced regardless of this esteemed body's attempt to restrict it. Even a incredibly large army equipped with only sticks can cause widespread devastation to an enemy. We apologize for re-entering into this debate. We only wished to provide a new perspective.

That doesn't justify the use of nuclear weapons. That havoc will kill those of that generation, not completely obliterate the lives of who-knows-how-many more.

[Aetrina]

We applaud your dedication to this issue. And respectfully disagree with it.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Okay a new draft is up.

By popular demand, I changed clauses 5 and 6 to be permissive rather than mandatory/strongly encouraged. Frankly, I feel like I'm probably going to have to delete them or make them stronger, since right now they don't really do anything (nations are permitted to follow the recommendations of 5 and 6 without the WA telling them they can). Also, I'm nervous that a resolution telling nations that they should express disapproval or enact sanctions against wrongdoers might run afoul of the Rights and Duties resolution - which prohibits member nations from getting involved in military conflicts under the WA banner. I'm not convinced it is absolutely illegal, however, and I'd really like to keep those provisions (and strengthen them to "encouragement"). So I'd love some comments on that.

I also took another stab at defining WMD. I took Grand America's suggestion and tried to define WMDs in terms of what they are designed to do. I'd appreciate input on how to make the definition better.

[United Celts]

3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from violence against non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

Ambassador Mac Lochlainn takes the podium. "I'm afraid this may require some definition of combatants and non-combatants."

4. Member Nations are encouraged to against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest. A "vital national interest" is an interest on the same level as a nation's interest in preserving their existence or preventing genocide.

Mac Lochlainn grins before continuing. "I'm sure this was just an oversight on Ambassador Scaredilocks' part, but clean-up in Section 4."

5. Member Nations are permitted to enact diplomatic sanctions against any nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity, including trade sanctions and public condemnation.

6. Member Nations are permitted to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to any nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

Mac Lochlainn looks a bit puzzled, then comments: "I'm not sure why the language was watered down from the previous draft for Sections 4, 5, and 6. I strongly urge Ambassador Scaredilocks to return to the original language. Section 4 now barely does anything and Sections 5 and 6 don't do anything at all as member nations are already permitted to engage in those actions, as Ambassador Scaredilocks has observed.

"This isn't the time for timidity. Ambassador Scaredilocks, you took a bold stand in proposing this legislation. Continue to be bold. There is absolutely no reason why a member nation should use WMDs against another member nation or go to war with another member nation unless absolutely necessary to protect vital national interests. Those should be requirements. I would argue that Sections 5 and 6 should also be requirements if they're not illegal, but at a minimum they should be encouraged rather than permitted. Stand strong, sir, and the Kingdom will stand with you."

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I'm afraid this may require some definition of combatants and non-combatants.

Yes, I had hoped that those terms were self explanatory, but I see your point. Any suggestions on how to properly define them?

I'm sure this was just an oversight on Ambassador Scaredilocks' part, but clean-up in Section 4.

Oh my! Yes, I was toying with that provision but decided to leave it alone for now. I must have forgotten to put it back the way I found it. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm quite embarrassed that I missed it.

I'm not sure why the language was watered down from the previous draft for Sections 4, 5, and 6. I strongly urge Ambassador Scaredilocks to return to the original language. Section 4 now barely does anything and Sections 5 and 6 don't do anything at all as member nations are already permitted to engage in those actions, as Ambassador Scaredilocks has observed.

You're probably right. 4 should not have been touched. I watered 5 and 6 way down because I'm afraid of section 10 of the Right and Duties:

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

I don't want these provisions to be considered "denouncing" or "organizing" under the WA banner. I termed them as permissive because at least the principle would be stated, without the WA really doing anything (thus, not running afoul of Article 10). I want to bump them back up to strong encouragements, but I'm hoping to hear from more senior ambassadors that doing so would be legal.

"This isn't the time for timidity. Ambassador Scaredilocks, you took a bold stand in proposing this legislation. Continue to be bold. There is absolutely no reason why a member nation should use WMDs against another member nation or go to war with another member nation unless absolutely necessary to protect vital national interests. Those should be requirements. I would argue that Sections 5 and 6 should also be requirements if they're not illegal, but at a minimum they should be encouraged rather than permitted. Stand strong, sir, and the Kingdom will stand with you."

I agree with you on these points, and I appreciate your support. I just need to see what folks say about the implication of Article 10 on provisions 5 and 6 before I can proceed.

[Damanucus]

3. When engaging in military conflict, Member Nations shall distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Member Nations shall take all practicable steps to protect those deemed non-combatants from injury and death, including but not limited to:
(a) Refraining from violence against non-combatants,
(b) Refraining from taking non-combatants as hostages,
(c) Refraining from committing cruel or degrading acts against non-combatants
(d) Refraining from pillage or theft from non-combatants.

This clause, more than anything, is extremely difficult to enforce. Do you define a civilian as a combatant if they directly attack another combatant? If so, then I would have to strongly decide against this resolution for that very reason.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Aetrina]

We cannot help but re-engage in this discussion. The tenants of Article 10 seem to be clear.

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.

We may not fully understand this article but it does seem as though any stronger wording might run afoul of this Article. Specifically "denouncing" the use of so-called WMD's.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

We cannot help but re-engage in this discussion. The tenants of Article 10 seem to be clear.

We may not fully understand this article but it does seem as though any stronger wording might run afoul of this Article. Specifically "denouncing" the use of so-called WMD's.

Indeed. I'm concerned of that as well. My counter argument would be that the provisions do not involve actions "under the WA banner." Nations would be acting individually, with no WA oversight. I do think requiring nations to comply with the provisions would be pushing it, but I'm not convinced encouraging nations to do something on their own would violate Article 10.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

This clause, more than anything, is extremely difficult to enforce. Do you define a civilian as a combatant if they directly attack another combatant? If so, then I would have to strongly decide against this resolution for that very reason.

I actually left the definition of those terms kinda vague for a reason. All I really want is for nations to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. I'm pretty confident that the terms alone imply the way they should be distinguished - based on "who is participating in the combat." I felt like if I got too involved in defining these terms precisely, everybody would object. Some nations would say my definition included too many people as "non-combatants." Other nations would say that I included too few.

Your example is the perfect illustration of this. Damanucus would never consider a person a "combatant," just because they pushed an invading soldier out of their home. But other nations might, and they would object to me putting their soldiers in harms way.

I do understand your point, though. Some nations will distinguish between combatants and non-combatants rigorously and with purpose - like Damanascus, I'm sure. Others will say that you are only a non-combatant if you're 500 miles away from combat at all times. But at least under the proposal all nations must distinguish between the two, and must treat non-combatants humanely.

[Aetrina]

Indeed. I'm concerned of that as well. My counter argument would be that the provisions do not involve actions "under the WA banner." Nations would be acting individually, with no WA oversight. I do think requiring nations to comply with the provisions would be pushing it, but I'm not convinced encouraging nations to do something on their own would violate Article 10.

We would again wish to applaud your diligence and efforts to make this a workable draft. While we continue to voice our opposition to this resolution, We agree that "requiring" nations to comply with this resolution could be seen as a violation of Article 10. We would also wish to clarify the Kingdom's position on some of the other points made in this discussion. We agree with the abhorrent nature of taking civilians as "hostages" although we would also emphasize that ANY combative action against our armed forces can be seen as cause for said military to "reduce" that threat. It is the responsibility of any civilized society to reduce or eliminate the unnecessary death or injury to "civilians". We also recognize that on occasion a "measured response" must take that sort of thing into consideration. To return to our original point: IF the WA is to be a truly "Neutral" body then any sort of mandated action on it's part could be seen as illegal.

[United Celts]

I don't want these provisions to be considered "denouncing" or "organizing" under the WA banner. I termed them as permissive because at least the principle would be stated, without the WA really doing anything (thus, not running afoul of Article 10). I want to bump them back up to strong encouragements, but I'm hoping to hear from more senior ambassadors that doing so would be legal. . . .

I agree with you on these points, and I appreciate your support. I just need to see what folks say about the implication of Article 10 on provisions 5 and 6 before I can proceed.

Ambassador Mac Lochlainn rises to address Ambassador Scaredilocks. "Of course, I understand completely. We would support altering the language of Sections 5 and 6 if such is necessary for legal purposes. I just didn't want to see the proposal watered down to appease those who can't be appeased and who will vote against this proposal no matter how it's worded. I'm glad to hear that the original language will be restored in Section 4."

Yes, I had hoped that those terms were self explanatory, but I see your point. Any suggestions on how to properly define them?

Mac Lochlainn briefly confers with his staff before replying: "Not yet, but I'm convinced that Section 3 is both necessary and may be the biggest obstacle to this proposal's passage if poorly defined. We'll give the matter some thought and get back to you."

[Damanucus]

This clause, more than anything, is extremely difficult to enforce. Do you define a civilian as a combatant if they directly attack another combatant? If so, then I would have to strongly decide against this resolution for that very reason.

I actually left the definition of those terms kinda vague for a reason. All I really want is for nations to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. I'm pretty confident that the terms alone imply the way they should be distinguished - based on "who is participating in the combat." I felt like if I got too involved in defining these terms precisely, everybody would object. Some nations would say my definition included too many people as "non-combatants." Other nations would say that I included too few.

Your example is the perfect illustration of this. Damanucus would never consider a person a "combatant," just because they pushed an invading soldier out of their home. But other nations might, and they would object to me putting their soldiers in harms way.

I do understand your point, though. Some nations will distinguish between combatants and non-combatants rigorously and with purpose - like Damanascus, I'm sure. Others will say that you are only a non-combatant if you're 500 miles away from combat at all times. But at least under the proposal all nations must distinguish between the two, and must treat non-combatants humanely.

Believe me, Melvin, I'm not doubting the necessity of the clause, or the resolution, for that matter; after all, it helps if we're fighting the same war under the same rules. But the problem comes about in the fact that these rules do seem a little vague, and especially this clause, which, as mentioned earlier...actually, I'll just quote one of our fellow ambassadors:

"[...]I'm convinced that Section 3 is both necessary and may be the biggest obstacle to this proposal's passage if poorly defined."

If there is too big a gray area in regards to who is considered a combatant and non-combatant, then there could be a lot of soldiers/generals/leaders who could easily get away with what may be perceived by other nations as war crimes simply by the way they apply the law. Hence, a little constraint would be a helpful thing.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Indeed. I'm concerned of that as well. My counter argument would be that the provisions do not involve actions "under the WA banner." Nations would be acting individually, with no WA oversight. I do think requiring nations to comply with the provisions would be pushing it, but I'm not convinced encouraging nations to do something on their own would violate Article 10.

We would again wish to applaud your diligence and efforts to make this a workable draft. While we continue to voice our opposition to this resolution, We agree that "requiring" nations to comply with this resolution could be seen as a violation of Article 10... To return to our original point: IF the WA is to be a truly "Neutral" body then any sort of mandated action on it's part could be seen as illegal.

I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about whether I can encourage or require the actions discussed in sections 5 and 6. The reason I'm nervous about those provisions is that Article 10 of Rights and Duties requires WA "neutrality" in conflicts. I'm not sure if I can get away with a provision encouraging member nations to enact sanctions or take retributive action against a nation. That's getting awfully close to the line. I think I might be able to get away with it because those actions would not be "under the WA banner" but would be up to individual nations to decide for themselves. Then again, even WA "encouragement" might be viewed as a violation of Rights and Duties. Hence, my conundrum.

But you refer to requiring nations to comply with "this resolution" as if all of the provisions might implicate Article 10. They don't. The WA has a long history of stating rules of war, including the humanitarian aid provisions, the convention on treatment of POWs, and the war crimes convention. So long as the WA does not take sides in a particular conflict, it can state rules that all nations must abide by (so long as they are member nations, of course).

So, we very much can flatly prohibit the use of WMDs by member nations. So long as the WA applies the rule equally and without taking sides. It's only provisions 5 and 6 that I believe may violate Rights and Duties, because they come awfully close to the WA taking sides. I'm still hoping that by encouraging individual action, I may get around that. But that is what I'm debating - not the legality of the resolution as a whole, but just those two provisions. I'm quite sure the rest would be legal, at least when it comes to conflicting Rights and Duties.

[Aetrina]

4. Member Nations shall not go to war against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest. A "vital national interest" is an interest on the same level as a nation's interest in preserving their existence or preventing genocide.

5. Member Nations are permitted to enact diplomatic sanctions against any nation that uses WMDs in a military capacity, including trade sanctions and public condemnation.

6. Member Nations are permitted to take additional retributive measures they deem necessary in response to any nation's use of a WMD, to the extent authorized by law.

The wording permitted is acceptable in this sense we believe. In the event of a use of such an "unpopular" weapon as a WMD, the nation using it should expect some sort of sanction from those nations who find it's use distasteful by ideological differences. Be assured that we are not looking for wholesale permission to use WMD's only that the option is not eliminated by a outside entity. Also Section 4 is too restricting we believe. A Nations "Interests" should be determined by that nation. Saying that we can only go to war with a nation that is trying to completely eradicate us is far too limiting. National interest must be defended from ANY threat. Altogether this is a very well written proposal. We are not experts on international law and only speak from our short experience in this organization. We will continue to monitor the progress of this and offer comment when we feel it is warranted.

[Sanctaria]

I'm not sure if this was missed or not, but I'll throw it out there again. Regardless of my support or not at this stage, based on the content, the title is a little misleading and I would recommend the Ambassador rectify this.

Rgds etc.,

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Also Section 4 is too restricting we believe. A Nations "Interests" should be determined by that nation.

Section 4 allows nations to determine what their interests are. All it says is that a member nation may only go to war if doing so is "necessary" to meet a "vital national interest." It does give some guidance on what a "vital interest" might be so that nations can't say they had to invade to get another nation to stop playing their music too loud (or some other bs reason). But it doesn't say "only self-preservation is a vital interest." Actually deciding whether going to war is "necessary" to meet a "vital interest" is still up to individual nations.

Essentially, this provision is my attempt at a IntFed/NatSov compromise. There's enough meat on it to contribute something meaningful to international law, while still giving nations pretty wide discretion in deciding when and why they will go to war.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

I'm not sure if this was missed or not, but I'll throw it out there again. Regardless of my support or not at this stage, based on the content, the title is a little misleading and I would recommend the Ambassador rectify this.

Rgds etc.,

Mind if I ask why you think it's misleading? I choose "Rules of Engagement" because the resolution takes a stab at defining acceptable behavior between belligerents in war time. I'd be happy to call it something else though, if a different title is more appropriate.

[Aetrina]

Section 4 allows nations to determine what their interests are. All it says is that a member nation may only go to war if doing so is "necessary" to meet a "vital national interest." It does give some guidance on what a "vital interest" might be so that nations can't say they had to invade to get another nation to stop playing their music too loud (or some other bs reason). But it doesn't say "only self-preservation is a vital interest." Actually deciding whether going to war is "necessary" to meet a "vital interest" is still up to individual nations.

Essentially, this provision is my attempt at a IntFed/NatSov compromise. There's enough meat on it to contribute something meaningful to international law, while still giving nations pretty wide discretion in deciding when and why they will go to war.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

We seem to have misunderstood that section. We apologize.

[Sanctaria]

I'm not sure if this was missed or not, but I'll throw it out there again. Regardless of my support or not at this stage, based on the content, the title is a little misleading and I would recommend the Ambassador rectify this.

Rgds etc.,

Mind if I ask why you think it's misleading? I choose "Rules of Engagement" because the resolution takes a stab at defining acceptable behavior between belligerents in war time. I'd be happy to call it something else though, if a different title is more appropriate.

It seems to be primarily concerned with WMDs, which isn't exactly rules of engagement. Also, on something else, are you sure:

4. Member Nations shall not go to war against another Member Nation unless doing so is absolutely necessary to meet a vital national interest. A "vital national interest" is an interest on the same level as a nation's interest in preserving their existence or preventing genocide.

is legal given:

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.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

*snip*

Frankly, no I'm not. I tried to draft it in a way I thought would be legal (obviously), and I did consider Rights and Duties while I was drafting. I was under the impression the the WA could impose these sorts of "before you go to war" provisions based on the Unibotan attempts at a Peace Conference resolution. Suffice to say, I did notice two potential issues:

First, Article 4 protects a national right to self defense. So, if I was going to limit when nations could go to war, I couldn't do it in a way that would prohibit defensive military action. I also needed to add something more than just defense, or I'd be duplicating. That's why I settled on the clause I did - it does not contradict Article 4's right to self-defense, and it does not duplicate it because it acknowledges additional interests that might justify going to war.

Second, Article 5 defines war, and allows nations to intercede against declarations of war. I wasn't exactly sure what it meant to "intercede" so this is where I'm still a little shaky. But insofar as I did not try to alter Article 5's definition of war, and I do not prevent nations from interceding if doing so is "necessary to a vital interest," I don't think there's a conflict. And I certainly don't think I'm duplicating.

I don't think Articles 6 and 7 have anything to do with my provision.

And I know Rights and Duties in War is not a blocker to further restrictions on warfare - as evidenced by the several resolutions on the books dealing with the subject.

Is there another argument I missed?

[Sanctaria]

*snip*

Frankly, no I'm not. I tried to draft it in a way I thought would be legal (obviously), and I did consider Rights and Duties while I was drafting. I was under the impression the the WA could impose these sorts of "before you go to war" provisions based on the Unibotan attempts at Peace Conference resolution. Suffice to say, I did notice two potential issues:

First, Article 4 protects a national right to self defense. So, if I was going to limit when nations could go to war, I couldn't do it in a way that would prohibit defensive military action. I also needed to add something more than just defense, or I'd be duplicating. That's why I settled on the clause I did - it does not contradict Article 4's right to self-defense, and it does not duplicate it because it acknowledges additional interests that might justify going to war.

Second, Article 5 defines war, and allows nations to intercede against declarations of war. I wasn't exactly sure what it meant to "intercede" so this is where I'm still a little shaky. But insofar as I did not try to alter Article 5's definition of war, and I do not prevent nations from interceding if doing so is "necessary to a vital interest," I don't think there's a conflict. And I certainly don't think I'm duplicating.

I don't think Articles 6 and 7 have anything to do with my provision.

And I know Rights and Duties in War is not a blocker to further restrictions on warfare - as evidenced by the several resolutions on the books dealing with the subject.

Is there another argument I missed?

The titling of your proposal?

I'll need to actually examine both more carefully before I can make a recommendation on legality.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

The titling of your proposal?

I'll need to actually examine both more carefully before I can make a recommendation on legality.

Please do! I could certainly use a second opinion. I'm open to suggestions on the title. I'll try to think of some good ones myself, but titling is definitely not my greatest skill.

[United Celts]

I'm open to suggestions on the title. I'll try to think of some good ones myself, but titling is definitely not my greatest skill.

Ambassador Mac Lochlainn rises to speak. "Here are a couple I've thought of off the top of my head: WA Peace Accords and The WA Non-Aggression Pact. I prefer the former as it has an acronym, WAPA, that really rolls off the tongue. On the other hand, WANAP does seem to fit with the Armed Republic of Cowardly Pacifists' current flag. I don't think a title that deals exclusively with WMDs would be appropriate either because the proposal does more than address WMDs."

Mac Lochlainn pauses before adding: "Yes, I am being serious, but only by about half."

[Robin Hood]

Firstly, I will not support any proposal that threatens member states' abilities to wage war.

It's 'cause he's pro-life and Christian.

[Auralia]

Firstly, I will not support any proposal that threatens member states' abilities to wage war.

It's 'cause he's pro-life and Christian.

Oh, an ad hominem attack. How nice.

Actually, the ambassador's statement makes perfect sense. We don't trust the WA to dictate morality, including which wars are "right" and which wars are "wrong." That responsibility should rest with Auralia alone.