[SUBMITTED] Resolution to Restrict PMC's

[Radonicus]

The Nations of the World here Assembled,

NOTING the increasing presence of private military companies on the field of battle,

ACKNOWLEDGING the convenience of private military companies,

BEARING IN MIND that wars are fought and defined by the involved Nations,

DEEPLY CONCERNED that private military companies challenge that definition,

HEREBY

1. AFFIRMS nations sovereign power to hire private military companies,
2. ENCOURAGES restrictions on the quantity of private troops deployed to a field of battle,
3. ENDORSES a cap on money spent on private military companies in times of war,
4. CALLS UPON the World Assembly to create the Committee on National and Private Regulation of Offensive Spending (CONPROS) to define aforesaid restrictions and caps,
5. EMPHASIZES the necessity for regulations on private military companies,
6. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that the nations of the World Assembly will support and affirm this resolution

Your support for this proposal would be most appreciated! Thank you all!

-Radonicus

[Grays Harbor]

While we do not use mercenary units ourselves, we can see the utility of them, especially for smaller and less well-funded nations who possibly could not afford up to date equipment on their own, nor have the facilities available to train their soldiers in their use. Should a nation or private companies care to involve themselves in this business, that is their affair, and not one for the WA to deny them access to. We also and most especially do not feel the need for yet another WA bureaucracy to be installed, especially one which serves no purpose but to limit those less capable nations from procuring the means to defend themselves with.

One more thing, it is a much preferred idea that draft resolutions be put up for debate PRIOR to their being submitted, not after. Something, I should like to add, which has been mentioned with alarming frequency in these halls as many appear not to believe that.

Debate first, then submit.

As this proposal currently stands, there is no way the Kingdom can offer any support.

[Priatha]

Ambassador,

First, why should we fear changing the definition of warfare? What is so bad about countries hiring PMCs during wartime? Especially when one considers all the different types of warfare, and how they change with new technology. Id est, when technology was scarce, warfare was one-on-one hacking-each-other-with-swords sort of face-to-face confrontation. When technology increases, this becomes different -- with planes and missiles, for instance, it becomes not face-to-face but a sort of gunning-down-as-many-faceless-people-as-possible sort of endeavor.

((In RL, this can be seen in the American Revolution -- the British fought in organized patterns while Patriots adopted a guerilla fighting style, which is far more common nowadays and accepted as warfare, while back then it would not have been.))

You mention that you are "deeply concerned" that the involvement of mercenaries and private military companies will "change" the definition of warfare. However, you fail to present a reason to be concerned. I see PMCs and mercenaries as alternate soldiers; id est, they are an extension of a nation's fighting force. What really separates them from the regular soldiers? What about this separation is harmful? You "emphasize the necessity for regulations" of PMCs, but you again fail to bring up a valid argument as to why this is necessary. I fail to see any justification outlined in the act.

Another note: what happens when a small nation, with a limited population eligible to fight, has war declared on them by a larger, far more powerful nation? Why shouldn't they be permitted to hire people to fight in their interests, especially when the alternative is getting invaded etc.?

I am also worried about the precedent of permitting the WA to control exactly how much a country is allowed to spend in their defense budget. As far as Priatha is concerned, regulations on what a nation cannot do is fine -- id est, putting regulations on the weapons a nation is permitted to produce (esp. nuclear, biological, and chemical) due to adverse dangers of them. What is not permissible is the WA saying a nation must spend x in this region, y in another, but no more than z in this or that, and only p percent is allowed to be put into this. Such a precedent is dangerous and must be avoided.

[Radonicus]

((OOC: It was discussed and debated with the people i represent, in Caprecia. This was merely advertising, unfortunately i have already submitted the resolution but i will remember your advice in the future. Apologies for any inconvenience, i was aware of the guidelines i assumed they were kind of optional...

again, i'm terribly sorry for any inconvenience this causes.))

[Grays Harbor]

((OOC: It was discussed and debated with the people i represent, in Caprecia. This was merely advertising, unfortunately i have already submitted the resolution but i will remember your advice in the future. Apologies for any inconvenience, i was aware of the guidelines i assumed they were kind of optional...

again, i'm terribly sorry for any inconvenience this causes.))

Should you desire support for any proposal, then disregarding the General Assembly, the people whose support you need, is not the wisest of choices one can make.

[Radonicus]

((OOC: No harm in seeing if a proposal could pass on its merits alone But again, i apologize, if i have an opportunity to submit a proposal, i shan't make the same mistake.))

[Philimbesi]

I must confess good ambassador that I don't see the issue with allowing nations to hire mercenary forces. What concern would it be to us who fights their wars?

[Ardchoille]

Unfortunately, I'm reading the active part of your proposal like this:

HEREBY

1. AFFIRMS nations sovereign power to hire private military companies,

Decorative noise

2. ENCOURAGES restrictions on the quantity of private troops deployed to a field of battle,

Hey, here's a good idea, WA!

3. ENDORSES a cap on money spent on private military companies in times of war,

Hey, here's another good idea, WA!

4. CALLS UPON the World Assembly to create the Committee on National and Private Regulation of Offensive Spending (CONPROS) to define aforesaid restrictions and caps,

Let's call upon ourselves to set up a committee to work on these good ideas!

5. EMPHASIZES the necessity for regulations on private military companies,

Oh, yeah, here's another good idea, WA!

6. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that the nations of the World Assembly will support and affirm this resolution
Your support for this proposal would be most appreciated! Thank you all!

-Radonicus

Really bad decorative noise.

Okay, No 1 is unnecessary, but not a real problem: doesn't do anything, doesn't undo anything.

Nos 2, 3 and 5 are statements of principle. Common in proposals, and a fair enough intro to a law -- gives the national parliaments of WA nations some idea of what direction they should aim in, But they don't make the WA do anything.

No 6 is out because what you're doing with a WA proposal is, literally, laying down the law. You don't say, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL -- and I hope you'll all support and affirm Me on this." The text of a WA proposal is international legislation. The "hope you'll support" belongs in TGs to delegates, not in the law itself.

That leaves, as an active clause, only No 4. And what it does is call on the WA to set up a committee.

I'm not happy with this phrasing: I think it should just say, "the WA ... hereby sets up a committee".

But even if the "calls on" wording is accepted, the whole extent of what the proposal actually does is set up a committee. And it says, in the Rules for Proposals, that a proposal that does no more than set up a committee is illegal.

Now, that doesn't mean that a legal proposal can't be written to do exactly what you want it to do. But it will need rewriting, and it will need an awareness of rules quirks, such as the "committee" violation.

That's why proposal authors are better off if they submit a draft first. There's a lot of knowledge among the regulars, and they're willing to help. They could have saved you from the "committee" violation, tightened up the wording to get rid of the unnecessary noise, maybe suggested some other active move the WA could make in such a proposal.

You're right that it's optional to submit a draft. But if it saves you from having an "illegal proposal" warning against your nation, and if it helps the WA get better legislation on its books, what's not to love about the idea?

The catch with drafts is that nations that are ideologically opposed to your idea may try to discourage you from submitting it. To deal with that, I'm afraid, you're just going to have to learn about WA politics. But I'm sure you'll have some helpers there, too.

(BTW, I haven't gone through the proposal in this much detail to put you down. You're obviously prepared to take advice, and that's definitely something to be encouraged. )

[Radonicus]

(( Thanks Ardchoille, i'll definitely be looking at the rules and regs more carefully before submitting, and i'll take your advice into account for future proposals i submit!))