[DRAFT] Rights of Surrendering Parties

[Cowardly Pacifists]

SUBMITTED. Delegates, if you would be so kind...

Rights of Surrendering Parties
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

RECALLING the commitment of Member Nations to see peace prevail and avoid military conflict whenever possible;

AWARE that belligerents may wish to surrender in an attempt to end a war or avoid pointless bloodshed;

OBSERVING that there are those who would take unjust advantage of an opponent's intent or desire to end hostilities;

CONCERNED that such tactics undermine the willingness of parties to negotiate the end of hostilities - prolonging war and increasing the terrible costs associated with armed conflict;

DETERMINED to protect those who would ultimately become prisoners of war;

Hereby:

1. PROHIBITS the killing, injuring, or targeting for attack of persons who have clearly expressed a genuine desire to negotiate surrender, unless and until those persons take some action to rejoin the fighting;

2. DEFINES "perfidy" as "any act of leading a military opponent to believe that they are entitled to (or obliged to afford) some protection, safety, or right under a World Assembly resolution or the international law of war, with the intent to betray the opponent's belief to secure an advantage." Acts that constitute perfidy include, but are not limited to: (1) feigning an offer to surrender, (2) falsely promising a truce or cease-fire, and (3) impersonating a civilian, doctor, international aid worker, or any other neutral party.

3. FORBIDS the use of perfidy as a military tactic, and outlaws harming an adversary by resorting to acts of perfidy;

4. AFFIRMS that those who engage in acts of perfidy against a Member Nation may be treated as active enemy combatants.

On Military Surrender
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

BELIEVING that military conflict should be avoided whenever possible;

AWARE that belligerent nations, armies, and soldiers may wish to surrender in an attempt to end a war or avoid pointless bloodshed;

CONVINCED that giving combatants an opportunity to surrender will drastically reduce the terrible costs associated with armed conflict;

1. DEFINES "surrender" as "the voluntary ceasing of military and belligerent actions, either by capitulation or giving oneself up as a prisoner of war."

2. OBLIGES Member Nations to offer terms under which opposing combatants may surrender if doing so can be accomplished safely;

3. MANDATES that if opposing combatants make a genuine offer to surrender unconditionally, Member Nations must accept their surrender;

4. URGES Member Nations to accept a genuine offer of conditional surrender made by opposing combatants if the offered terms would satisfactorily fulfill military objectives;

5. REQUIRES that once terms of surrender are agreed to, all parties to those terms must immediately cease hostilities;

6. CLARIFIES that when negotiating and following through on terms of surrender, Member Nations may take all necessary precautions to safeguard their citizens, troops, and national interests from deceit or abuse.

On Military Surrender
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

BELIEVING that military conflict should be avoided whenever possible;

AWARE that belligerent nations, armies, and soldiers may wish to surrender in an attempt to end a war or avoid pointless bloodshed;

CONVINCED that giving willing combatants an opportunity to surrender will drastically lessen the terrible costs associated with armed conflict;

HEREBY

1. DEFINES "surrender" as "the voluntary ceasing of military and belligerent actions, either by capitulation or give oneself up as a prisoner of war."

2. OBLIGES Member Nations to accept an offer of unconditional surrender made by opposing combatants.

3. FURTHER OBLIGES Member Nations to accept an offer of conditional surrender made by opposing combatants if the offered terms would satisfactorily fulfill military objectives.

4. FURTHER OBLIGES Member Nations to offer terms of surrender to opposing combatants if doing so can be accomplished safely.

5. CLARIFIES that Member Nations - when negotiating and following through on terms of surrender - may take all necessary precautions to safeguard their citizens, troops, and national interests from deceit or abuse.

The time has come for another cowardly Global Disarmament proposal. While I'm really more interested in my Contracts proposal I figured I'd throw this out there and see what kind of looks I get.

Hopefully mostly 's, though I'm expected a few 's and 's, and maybe even a few 's.

Then again, maybe I'll get a few 's.

Thoughts?

[Knootoss]

-How does this reduce military spending?

-What about nations/troops that have a history of using false flag surrenders or false surrenders as a military ploy? Military doctrine must deal with such occasions.

[Ossitania]

We will review the content of the proposal more thoroughly when you have put commas in those places where they have been inappropriately misplaced by full stops.

[Stalltopia]

Stalltopia is considering supporting this proposal. However, we would like to point out that this will never pass as is because many will simply vote no when they read that this proposes forced cuts in military spending.

[Sanctaria]

Stalltopia is considering supporting this proposal. However, we would like to point out that this will never pass as is because many will simply vote no when they read that this proposes forced cuts in military spending.

You're totally right. A Global Disarmament proposal has never passed at vote.

[Kel-Elysia]

...

Aha...ahahaha...AHAHAHA!!!

Want to make the world a more peaceful place? Allow people to make war so mindbogglingly horrible, and maybe people will consider talking things out for once. If you make war a less costly, horrible and unpleasant affair, you're only inviting people to try to enjoy it.

[Auralia]

What about nations/troops that have a history of using false flag surrenders or false surrenders as a military ploy? Military doctrine must deal with such occasions.

This.

[Glen-Rhodes]

What about nations/troops that have a history of using false flag surrenders or false surrenders as a military ploy? Military doctrine must deal with such occasions.

The proper action would be to assume good faith and react accordingly when there's enough contradictory evidence, acting with great caution throughout the situation. At least, that's the standard operating procedure in Glen-Rhodes. The proposal should definitely exclude perfidy.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: Relevant real-life customary humanitarian law on this issue. Unfortunately there's not much mention of what's allowed when you've discovered perfidy. I'm assuming the person just becomes a normal combatant, or that this sentence would apply:

The Lieber Code provides that “the common law of war allows even capital punishment for clandestine or treacherous attempts to injure an enemy, because they are so dangerous, and it is difficult to guard against them”.

[Pollepao]

Pollepao is in favour of this resolution so far, but the delegate has qualms about the following passage:

4. FURTHER OBLIGES Member Nations to offer terms of surrender to opposing combatants if doing so can be accomplished safely.

We do not believe that a nation should be oglibged to offer surrend by any World Assembly resolution, but instead be able to choose if it should or should not do so out of its own free will.

[Grays Harbor]

Quite honestly, do we really require "The laymans Guide to Surrendering" as a WA proposal?

[Ainocra]

"Opposed!" Marshal Enta barks

Coming to his feet he continues. "The decisions of the soldiers in the field are not now nor should they ever be the purview of this body."
The Marshal pauses for a moment to adjust his eye patch. "Ainocra is a military society, we accept our orders from the Supreme Marshal, not from this body."

[Paper Flowers]

-How does this reduce military spending?

I suppose if a conflict were to end sooner / scale down due to surrender (either collective or individual) then one would not be spending quite as much to continue the conflict?

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Sanctaria]

I have a bit of a general question that may or may not pertain to the legality of this. I'm not 100% sure on this, so just throwing it out there.

Under this, the World Assembly is demanding that should surrender be offered, the other side must take it. Now generally the acceptance of surrender is a command issued on the battlefield by the side being surrendered to.

Now considering that Rights and Duties forbids the World Assembly from commanding, or otherwise participating, in an armed conflict, would the aforementioned demand be considered a military order?

[Ainocra]

I believe it would.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Now considering that Rights and Duties forbids the World Assembly from commanding, or otherwise participating, in an armed conflict, would the aforementioned demand be considered a military order?

Er, no. No more than any other resolution dealing with the laws of war is or would be. :\

[Sanctaria]

Now considering that Rights and Duties forbids the World Assembly from commanding, or otherwise participating, in an armed conflict, would the aforementioned demand be considered a military order?

Er, no. No more than any other resolution dealing with the laws of war is or would be. :\

Well this proposal is telling nations that should an opposing arm surrender, you must order your army to accept it.

That sounds like getting involved with an armed conflict to me.

[Bears Armed]

Er, no. No more than any other resolution dealing with the laws of war is or would be. :\

Well this proposal is telling nations that should an opposing arm surrender, you must order your army to accept it.

That sounds like getting involved with an armed conflict to me.

"We do already tell nations how to deal with enemy troops hwhose surrender they have accepted..."

[Sanctaria]

Well this proposal is telling nations that should an opposing arm surrender, you must order your army to accept it.

That sounds like getting involved with an armed conflict to me.

"We do already tell nations how to deal with enemy troops hwhose surrender they have accepted..."

This is true.

Like I said, it was just a general comment. Surrendering is a military action in wartime/armed conflict, I was just curious as to whether or not ordering the acceptance of a surrender constituted getting involved in it.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Okay lets see what kind of looks we've gotten so far.

First we have one of these: :

-How does this reduce military spending?

-What about nations/troops that have a history of using false flag surrenders or false surrenders as a military ploy? Military doctrine must deal with such occasions.

1. It reduces military spending the same way Warzone Codger's Medical Facilities Protection did. I rely on that proposal for the theory that avoiding the need to drop bombs, use munitions, and clean up afterwards satisfies the "reduce military spending" prong of Global Disarmament.

2. I'm also concerned about this, which is why I included clause 5. If that's not enough, I'm open to additional suggestions on how to safeguard nations from folks who are not really surrendering but just playing around. Perhaps including some "surrender must be genuine" language in the definition?

Next we have a :

We will review the content of the proposal more thoroughly when you have put commas in those places where they have been inappropriately misplaced by full stops.

Then a :

Stalltopia is considering supporting this proposal. However, we would like to point out that this will never pass as is because many will simply vote no when they read that this proposes forced cuts in military spending.

You're totally right. A Global Disarmament proposal has never passed at vote.

Back on track with a :

...

Aha...ahahaha...AHAHAHA!!!

Want to make the world a more peaceful place? Allow people to make war so mindbogglingly horrible, and maybe people will consider talking things out for once. If you make war a less costly, horrible and unpleasant affair, you're only inviting people to try to enjoy it.

Lemme get this straight. Your argument is that the only way to make war less horrible is to make it more horrible? Does your brain hurt after making that kind of statement? While we're at it, lets solve world hunger by starving people to death - fewer hungry people right?

Maybe you're right. International rules on warfare have never been very useful or effective, so I guess it's pointless to try. Then again, maybe you're crazy.

One of these :

What about nations/troops that have a history of using false flag surrenders or false surrenders as a military ploy? Military doctrine must deal with such occasions.

This.

I already tried to address this concern in the Act with Clause 5. As I said in my response to Knootoss, I'm willing to consider additional language to make it clear that nations do not need to fall victim to a Trojan horse.

One of these :

What about nations/troops that have a history of using false flag surrenders or false surrenders as a military ploy? Military doctrine must deal with such occasions.

The proper action would be to assume good faith and react accordingly when there's enough contradictory evidence, acting with great caution throughout the situation. At least, that's the standard operating procedure in Glen-Rhodes. The proposal should definitely exclude perfidy.

I tried to address the threat of false surrender in Clause 5, and I'm open to additional suggestions to strengthen it up.

On to one of these :

Pollepao is in favour of this resolution so far, but the delegate has qualms about the following passage:

4. FURTHER OBLIGES Member Nations to offer terms of surrender to opposing combatants if doing so can be accomplished safely.

We do not believe that a nation should be oglibged to offer surrend by any World Assembly resolution, but instead be able to choose if it should or should not do so out of its own free will.

I obliged nations to offer terms of surrender because I'm convinced there's always a less costly alternative to fighting. Nations could still decide what terms they want to offer, and they would not be obliged to offer terms if they could not do so safely. That said, I'm willing to soften the language in relevant ways if others agree that this provision goes too far. Frankly, this is the provision I expect to be the most contentious in the long run, so I'm sure it'll be modified before this thing ever gets close to submission.

Another :

Quite honestly, do we really require "The laymans Guide to Surrendering" as a WA proposal?

Not quite sure whether this is a criticism of the whole Act or just the definition of "surrender" I included. Assuming the former, the Act adds a substantial component to the WA law of war. We have a few resolutions describing the effects of being a "surrendered" combatant, but no clear direction on when or how one becomes a surrendered combatant. This proposal not only lends some clarity to that, but also prescribes wartime conduct in relevant and beneficial ways.

In my opinion, simple rules for international conduct during times of conflict is exactly what international governing bodies should spend most of their time on.

We got one :

"Opposed!" Marshal Enta barks

Coming to his feet he continues. "The decisions of the soldiers in the field are not now nor should they ever be the purview of this body."
The Marshal pauses for a moment to adjust his eye patch. "Ainocra is a military society, we accept our orders from the Supreme Marshal, not from this body."

I got nothing. This is one of those issues where the military Star Empire of Ainocra and the Please Don't Attack Us of Cowardly Pacifists are just on irreconcilably opposite sides. I do feel that restricting wartime conduct in relevant ways is a legitimate and appropriate use of international power. I'd be more that willing to consider Ainocran concerns and incorporate Ainocran principles into the draft, but I don't accept "hands off" criticism - at least not in this field.

Another :

-How does this reduce military spending?

I suppose if a conflict were to end sooner / scale down due to surrender (either collective or individual) then one would not be spending quite as much to continue the conflict?

This is exactly the argument I believe justifies putting this proposal in the Global Disarmament category.

Finally, a question (ran out of smilies):

I have a bit of a general question that may or may not pertain to the legality of this. I'm not 100% sure on this, so just throwing it out there.

Under this, the World Assembly is demanding that should surrender be offered, the other side must take it. Now generally the acceptance of surrender is a command issued on the battlefield by the side being surrendered to.

Now considering that Rights and Duties forbids the World Assembly from commanding, or otherwise participating, in an armed conflict, would the aforementioned demand be considered a military order?

I believe it would.

My interpretation of Rights and Duties is that direct WA involvement in particular military struggles is right out, but prescribing wartime conduct in certain ways that does not involve the WA getting its hands dirty is permissible. After all, we've got resolutions on what nations can do with prisoners of war, and rules requiring nations to take action against those perpetrating genocide and to refrain from it themselves. We once had a resolution telling nations that they could not possess or use biological weapons in war (though it was lawfully repealed). We even had a resolution that explicitly told nations they couldn't go to war or conduct military actions in certain other nations (also lawfully repealed).

We also have several resolutions currently on the books that directly tell nations what they can, cannot, and must do in military conflicts. Medical Facilities Protection "PROHIBITS the deliberate targeting of medical facilities," the Convention On Wartime Deceased "PROHIBITS the needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle," Protect War Correspondents prohibits militants "from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions," and Medical Provisions in Blockade "PROHIBITS the blocking of any transport that is conveying medical supplies" (and even goes so far as to send a WA agency into blockaded nations to assure the safe transportation of medical supplies and professional medical personnel).

In short, I think there's plenty of WA precedent for what I'm trying to do with this Act. The WA has - from time to time - put certain rules in place regarding wartime conduct. This proposal is simply another in that line. So long as the WA does not get involved in particular military struggles "under a WA banner," passing legislation on wartime conduct is and has been perfectly permissible.

[Sanctaria]

My interpretation of Rights and Duties is that direct WA involvement in particular military struggles is right out, but prescribing wartime conduct in certain ways that does not involve the WA getting its hands dirty is permissible. After all, we've got resolutions on what nations can do with prisoners of war, and rules requiring nations to take action against those perpetrating genocide and to refrain from it themselves. We once had a resolution telling nations that they could not possess or use biological weapons in war (though it was lawfully repealed). We even had a resolution that explicitly told nations they couldn't go to war or conduct military actions in certain other nations (also lawfully repealed).

We also have several resolutions currently on the books that directly tell nations what they can, cannot, and must do in military conflicts. Medical Facilities Protection "PROHIBITS the deliberate targeting of medical facilities," the Convention On Wartime Deceased "PROHIBITS the needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle," Protect War Correspondents prohibits militants "from interacting with war correspondents with the intent of stymieing their actions," and Medical Provisions in Blockade "PROHIBITS the blocking of any transport that is conveying medical supplies" (and even goes so far as to send a WA agency into blockaded nations to assure the safe transportation of medical supplies and professional medical personnel).

In short, I think there's plenty of WA precedent for what I'm trying to do with this Act. The WA has - from time to time - put certain rules in place regarding wartime conduct. This proposal is simply another in that line. So long as the WA does not get involved in particular military struggles "under a WA banner," passing legislation on wartime conduct is and has been perfectly permissible.[/spoiler]

That's fair enough. I've always considered the question of surrendering to be a part of military strategy, as it were; a move on a chessboard, if you will. Whether or not you accepted the surrender or on what conditions would be part of the battle itself.

Like I said, it wasn't a serious legality question, it was more of a musing than an accusation.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

That's fair enough. I've always considered the question of surrendering to be a part of military strategy, as it were; a move on a chessboard, if you will. Whether or not you accepted the surrender or on what conditions would be part of the battle itself.

Like I said, it wasn't a serious legality question, it was more of a musing than an accusation.

I thought it was a legitimate question. There's certainly a line out there between permissible WA legislation on warfare and breaking Article 10 of Rights and Duties. It's good to make sure we're not crossing it.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It is extremely certain that a member country will only accept a surrender if the country that offers to will cease all hostilities.

I suggest this clause:

All participants of the conflict will immediately end hostilities between them, once an unconditional surrender is in effect.

[Ainocra]

I got nothing. This is one of those issues where the military Star Empire of Ainocra and the Please Don't Attack Us of Cowardly Pacifists are just on irreconcilably opposite sides. I do feel that restricting wartime conduct in relevant ways is a legitimate and appropriate use of international power. I'd be more that willing to consider Ainocran concerns and incorporate Ainocran principles into the draft, but I don't accept "hands off" criticism - at least not in this field.

Unfortunately Hands off is all you will receive.

Our military by law and oath takes orders from the Supreme Marshal, any outside attempt to interfere in our chain of command would be seen as an act of war.

In the interest of peace Ambassador I implore you to drop this foolishness.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

It is extremely certain that a member country will only accept a surrender if the country that offers to will cease all hostilities.

I suggest this clause:

All participants of the conflict will immediately end hostilities between them, once an unconditional surrender is in effect.

Good point. I'll work some kind of end of hostilities mandate into the next draft.

Unfortunately Hands off is all you will receive.

Our military by law and oath takes orders from the Supreme Marshal, any outside attempt to interfere in our chain of command would be seen as an act of war.

In the interest of peace Ambassador I implore you to drop this foolishness.

My nation might be full of cowardly pacifists, but we still don't respond well to threats.

Ainocra is already bound by numerous WA restrictions on what they can and cannot do in war. No matter how bad the Supreme Marshal might want to bomb a hospital or place a bunch of landmines around his backyard, WA law "interferes" quite intrusively with his ability to give those orders.

But I get it: Ainocra probably declared war against Warzone Codger and Quintessence of Dust for proposing those resolutions just as they're threatening to do over this one. If that's Ainocra's stance then that's just less work for me - one less ambassador to try to accommodate.

Best Regards.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Okay, new draft up. I played with the language a bit to address the "what if they're lying" concerns, added an "effect of surrender" clause per Charlotte Ryberg, and tweaked certain aspects of the proposal to make it more acceptable to everyone (I hope). Feedback is appreciated.