[ROUGH DRAFT] Just War Only Convention

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Just a closer war with thee...
Just War Only Convention
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: ??? significant ??? (was mild in draft #0)

Recognizing that all nations have a legitimate right of self defense.

Understanding that nations need to reserve their rights, within limits, to declare war against another nation;

Desiring that member nations should only use war as a last resort and only use as much force as necessary to accomplish their goals;

Establishes the following criteria by which all member nations must meet before it can declare war against any other nation;

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• There must be serious prospects of success;
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated;

Establishes The Committee of Arbitration of Regional Disputes In Nations According to Law (CARDINAL) to provide judgment and guidance to nations on whether they meet the above requirements.

Requires that these criteria must be used in determining if there is a right to go to war, in the right conduct of a war, and in the right conduct of post-war reconstruction.

CARDINAL .. get it ... this resolution is going to the birds. (And I'm only on draft revision #1)

character count = 1228

Recognizing that all nations have a legitimate right of self defense.

Understanding that nations need to reserve their rights, within limits, to declare war against another nation;

Desiring that member nations should only use war as a last resort and only use as much force as necessary to accomplish their goals;

Establishes the following criteria by which all member nations must meet before it can declare war against any other nation;

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• There must be serious prospects of success;
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated;

Reqires that these criteria must be used in determining if there is a right to go to war, in the right conduct of a war, and in the right conduct of post-war reconstruction.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Neither here nor there and probably won't participate beyond this post, but this is an area I actually know a lot about...

What you're describing here is mostly "Just Cause" or jus ad bellum. The "use of arms" part is jus in bello, which is part of Just War Theory, but is out of place since the proposal seems to want to discuss only the prerequisites for going to war and not the correct conduct during war.

If you're trying to do an all-encompassing resolution on Just War Theory in general... Well, good luck. It probably won't turn out well, especially if your goal is to be succinct. :/

[Honor and Glory]

Just a closer war with thee...
Just War Only Convention
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: ??? mild ???

Recognizing that all nations have a legitimate right of self defense.

Understanding that nations need to reserve their rights, within limits, to declare war against another nation;

Desiring that member nations should only use war as a last resort and only use as much force as necessary to accomplish their goals;

Establishes the following criteria by which all member nations must meet before it can declare war against any other nation;

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• There must be serious prospects of success;
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated;

Reqires that these criteria must be used in determining if there is a right to go to war, in the right conduct of a war, and in the right conduct of post-war reconstruction.

The basic idea is to implement the just war convention to member nations.

Who is determining the "lasting, grave, and certain" damage, or the evils/disorders of the arms vs the evil to be eliminated? this doesn't really do much if you leave it up to the nation declaring war, they can just say that them not owning that <natural resource> that is owned by <neighboring nation/community of nations> is doing lasting, certain damage to them. Or just declare that the evilest thing in the known universe is the sight of <neighboring people doing everyday socially acceptable behavior> and the only recourse is throw high explosives at them until there isn't enough of them left to do that thing

[Philimbesi]

Honored Colleague, please note my questions and concerns below. I have a large question as to whether or not this resolution as written actually "does" anything.

The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

So an invasion or major scale border incursion is not grounds for war?

All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

As determine by whom?

There must be serious prospects of success;

As determine by whom? I know of very few nations that declare wars they don't feel they might win?

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated;

As history is written by the winners, I don't see this as ever being an issue.

Reqires that these criteria must be used in determining if there is a right to go to war, in the right conduct of a war, and in the right conduct of post-war reconstruction.

Check your spelling honored colleague.


Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I like the idea, but I don't really understand how it's legal under Rights & Duties, which defines war as "consensual": if the conditions don't match this but people consent to the war, doesn't that initial definition apply?

[Ainocra]

The Fleet Marshal of Ainocra stands up. "The Star Empire of Ainocra will use military force to see to the safety and security of our people when WE feel it appropriate.
We will brook no interference from this assembly on that point. Attempting to legislate a national military response in this fashion is both foolhardy and dangerous."

Shaking his head he continues. "Ambassador we do not live in a perfect world, just this one, and in this world there is no just war there is, just war."
"As you have doubtless concluded by now; we are of course opposed to this well meaning attempt to undermine our security."

[Imperium Anglorum]

* The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* There must be serious prospects of success;
* The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated;

I think this bill is pointless. These are practically platitudes towards what a 'just' war is. Naturally, I could say that the Empire is going to declare war on you guys because (1) you are going down, (2) there is no negotiation with radical x-ists, (3) we are going to win, and (4) there is no evil greater than radical x-ists. Anyone can call anything a 'just' war, and there is no reason to legislate this anyway.

[Normlpeople]

"We echo the words of the fleet marshal. The decision to go to war is Princess Cadenzas to make, and not the WAs. All this would do is cause another membership suspension for the duration of the conflict, costing the participants any additional protections provided by WA law. I will not support anything which dictates when we may go to war."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Check your spelling honored colleague.

You would think I would have spotted the red line in my Microsoft Word document.

I see the point of who determines these things. This is, apparently, a job for YET ANOTHER USELESS COMMITTEE!

That will raise the strength significantly.

Oh I can see this just crashing and burning already.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Honored Colleague, please note my questions and concerns below. I have a large question as to whether or not this resolution as written actually "does" anything.

The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

So an invasion or major scale border incursion is not grounds for war?

Assuming that a nation's army doesn't invade, take selfie photos and leave behind plastic bottled water containers in their wake I suspect any invasion would be lasting, grave and certain.

All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

As determine by whom?

I'll make a committee. First name is for the birds. But that is what revisions are for.

There must be serious prospects of success;

As determine by whom? I know of very few nations that declare wars they don't feel they might win?

See above. Gnomes are wonderful people, you know.

OOC: By the way, you never heard of the Vietnam war?
OOC: Or even, technically speaking, the American Revolutionary War. (The initial prospects were roughly "no chance in hell" and Washington's forces were forced to make retreat after retreat after loosing Long Island, New York and New Jersey.)

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated;

As history is written by the winners, I don't see this as ever being an issue.

It's pretty easy to determine off hand. You don't nuke an invading force where radiation damage would wipe out the civilians, or launch a zombie apocalypse just because your borders are breached.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

OOC: I like the idea, but I don't really understand how it's legal under Rights & Duties, which defines war as "consensual": if the conditions don't match this but people consent to the war, doesn't that initial definition apply?

First of all, the "consensual" nature of war as defined in WA #2 is between consenting nations, "War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates." I don't necessarily see a Lockean right of a nation to engage in such wars for any reason whatsoever (assuming that the supreme legislature calls for it), merely that the war must be consensual between all nations concerned. If one wants war and the other wants peace it doesn't qualify under section II article 5. Placing reasonable restrictions against the declaration of war (and heck unreasonable ones as well) is perfectly permissible under this clause.