[Draft] Defense of Critical Services

[Wallenburg]

Defense of Critical Services
International Security | Significant

---

"I don't agree with the category choice very much. I still insist this is most appropriate for Global Disarmament."

Observing that the difference between continued crumbling of a war-torn area and eventual stability often rests on the effectiveness of restoration of critical infrastructure critical to civilian survival,

"This would be my personal preference, but the current wording works fine as well."

Defines a critical service as an activity, system, or device whose failure or disruption will endanger civilians, and which include, but are not limited to, potable water access, sanitation facilities, crops and livestock, food supplies, public health and emergency response activities, transportation routes, and power generation and transmission;

"Upon further reading, the definition of 'critical service' is in the singular sense, but the examples are in a plural sense. I suggest that you work with this clause to amend that issue."

Requires member states andto refrain from targeting or impacting critical services when there is not an insurmountable and immediate military necessity to do so;

[Separatist Peoples]

Defense of Critical Services
International Security | Significant

---

"I don't agree with the category choice very much. I still insist this is most appropriate for Global Disarmament."

"It requires an awful lot of additional spending in the form of cleaning up messes nations cause by their breach, and generally using strategies less effective than "carpet bombing", which will inevitably cost more, both in training, planning, and execution. Separate from the cost, it seeks to increase security, not reduce armaments.While it may discourage military action, it does so by making it more expensive, not by prohibiting it.

"The corrections have either been made, or are being looked at for incorporation with other planned edits."

[Wallenburg]

"I don't agree with the category choice very much. I still insist this is most appropriate for Global Disarmament."

"It requires an awful lot of additional spending in the form of cleaning up messes nations cause by their breach, and generally using strategies less effective than "carpet bombing", which will inevitably cost more, both in training, planning, and execution. Separate from the cost, it seeks to increase security, not reduce armaments.While it may discourage military action, it does so by making it more expensive, not by prohibiting it.

"The corrections have either been made, or are being looked at for incorporation with other planned edits."

"Very well, then. I anticipate that this proposal will have my approval."

[Aclion]

. Prohibits member states from deliberately targeting or negligently destroying critical services of a belligerent nation during armed conflict when those services:

a. Are indispensable for civilian health and safety, or;

This creates an incentive to design critical utilities in such a way the they are dependent on militarily important infrastructure(IE putting civilian hospital on the same power grid as radar installations), putting civilians at risk.

[Separatist Peoples]

. Prohibits member states from deliberately targeting or negligently destroying critical services of a belligerent nation during armed conflict when those services:

a. Are indispensable for civilian health and safety, or;

This creates an incentive to design critical utilities in such a way the they are dependent on militarily important infrastructure(IE putting civilian hospital on the same power grid as radar installations), putting civilians at risk.

"Why on earth would your military compromise it's radar installation by sharing power with a comparatively unsecured hospital? Even if they did, that means the hospital can't be deprived completely of power, not that the installation can't be destroyed or disabled. And since most modern hospitals have robust back-up systems to compensate for sudden power loss, it's doubtful anything but inconvenience would occur unless you've destroyed the entire power grid. It would be easier to blow up the radar installation. A wholly unconvincing argument, ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

. Prohibits member states from deliberately targeting or negligently destroying critical services of a belligerent nation during armed conflict when those services:

a. Are indispensable for civilian health and safety, or;

This creates an incentive to design critical utilities in such a way the they are dependent on militarily important infrastructure(IE putting civilian hospital on the same power grid as radar installations), putting civilians at risk.

"Why would a nation ever intentionally design their infrastructure so that more of their own civilians would suffer during a war?"

[Whovian Tardisia]

"I believe the point the ambassador from Aclion is trying to present, is that a military would tie their infrastructure into civilian infrastructure so, under this resolution, their enemies would be unable to target it. This is somewhat of a loophole, although it may also be considered bad faith."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I believe the point the ambassador from Aclion is trying to present, is that a military would tie their infrastructure into civilian infrastructure so, under this resolution, their enemies would be unable to target it. This is somewhat of a loophole, although it may also be considered bad faith."

"It's definitely would be. It believe it may also cost the hospital it's protected status, as it would be designed to shield an otherwise lawful target."

[Giant Bats]

Instead of Ikiti, another Tikrr, one with lighter brown bodyfur was perched behind her desk, listening to the debate and to her VTA (Visual To Aural) system that was translating the text of the proposal for her.

"It sounds to me that the clause 1.a. renders clause 2 null and void when it comes to power generation and transmission, at least in bigger cities, since it is almost a given that a civilian will be on life support in some hospital somewhere, and cutting the power even for a little while would present a major risk to their health and safety. Also, for the species that rely on visual sensations, the loss of street lights, traffic lights and lights in general at night-time would pose a major risk to their safety. The lack of traffic lights would likely do that in areas of high traffic load regardless of the time of day."

As usual, the words she actually spoke, were largely inaudible due to their high frequencies, and it was the voice of the translator device that was speaking for her. Its voice was calm and gender-neutral. Needing to display gender through the artificial voice had not been on the list of "important features" when the system had been adjusted for the Tikrr language.

"Also, clause 4 seems to prohibit attacks on stationary nuclear silos, since they are neither mobile power facilities nor military vessels, but certainly contain "dangerous forces", and given how so many nations around here defend their nuclear weaponry as being absolutely necessary for the functioning of their society, I feel they also fit the definition of "infrastructure". Additionally, considering how the text of the proposal is aimed at prohibiting military attacks in a fairly significant way, the category Global Disarmament would fit it better."

- Atikitir Tikilikrr, Spiritual Advicer to the Head of the Diplomatic Wing

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Ok, where did we land on this one?

"It sounds to me that the clause 1.a. renders clause 2 null and void when it comes to power generation and transmission, at least in bigger cities, since it is almost a given that a civilian will be on life support in some hospital somewhere, and cutting the power even for a little while would present a major risk to their health and safety.

"Most hospitals have generators to avoid exactly that risk from natural occurrences. That's not terribly convincing."

Also, for the species that rely on visual sensations, the loss of street lights, traffic lights and lights in general at night-time would pose a major risk to their safety. The lack of traffic lights would likely do that in areas of high traffic load regardless of the time of day."

"That is not an indispensable service. Traffic can be dangerous, but one can hardly say it's inimical to health and safety. Nor either is the ability to drive at night necessarily indispensable, since many vehicles have headlights.

"Also, clause 4 seems to prohibit attacks on stationary nuclear silos, since they are neither mobile power facilities nor military vessels, but certainly contain "dangerous forces", and given how so many nations around here defend their nuclear weaponry as being absolutely necessary for the functioning of their society, I feel they also fit the definition of "infrastructure".

"Yup. That's a pretty shitty target."

Additionally, considering how the text of the proposal is aimed at prohibiting military attacks in a fairly significant way, the category Global Disarmament would fit it better."

"Nations must either spend more money on more precise weapons or more surgical planning, or pay restitution as a result of their military action. That seems to raise military-related spending."

[Separatist Peoples]

Silence is acceptance, folks.

[Bananaistan]

Ted rises to address the chamber: " __________________________ "

[Imperial Polk County]

Ambassador Drane walks briskly past the open debate hall doorway. Moments later, he reappears in the doorway and peers inside. "Oh, here y'all are. Sorry, I'm still finding my way around this place."

He takes out his copy of the proposal. "Now, if I may, Ambassador Bell, I must disagree on your choice of category. Clause 1 says, don't attack things. Clause 2 says, okay, only maybe sometimes you can attack those things but not often. Clause 3 says, don't attack things. Clause 4 says, don't attack things. Clause 5 says, don't attack things, or else. The entirety of the proposal, save one small set of exceptions, is all about not attacking things. Well, if this isn't Global Disarmament, then I really don't know what is, in which case, can you explain it to me, like I was a seven-year-old?"

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador Drane walks briskly past the open debate hall doorway. Moments later, he reappears in the doorway and peers inside. "Oh, here y'all are. Sorry, I'm still finding my way around this place."

He takes out his copy of the proposal. "Now, if I may, Ambassador Bell, I must disagree on your choice of category. Clause 1 says, don't attack things. Clause 2 says, okay, only maybe sometimes you can attack those things but not often. Clause 3 says, don't attack things. Clause 4 says, don't attack things. Clause 5 says, don't attack things, or else. The entirety of the proposal, save one small set of exceptions, is all about not attacking things. Well, if this isn't Global Disarmament, then I really don't know what is, in which case, can you explain it to me, like I was a seven-year-old?"

"Nations must either spend more money on more precise weapons or more surgical planning, or pay restitution as a result of their military action. That seems to raise military-related spending."

[Imperial Polk County]

Ambassador Drane walks briskly past the open debate hall doorway. Moments later, he reappears in the doorway and peers inside. "Oh, here y'all are. Sorry, I'm still finding my way around this place."

He takes out his copy of the proposal. "Now, if I may, Ambassador Bell, I must disagree on your choice of category. Clause 1 says, don't attack things. Clause 2 says, okay, only maybe sometimes you can attack those things but not often. Clause 3 says, don't attack things. Clause 4 says, don't attack things. Clause 5 says, don't attack things, or else. The entirety of the proposal, save one small set of exceptions, is all about not attacking things. Well, if this isn't Global Disarmament, then I really don't know what is, in which case, can you explain it to me, like I was a seven-year-old?"

"Nations must either spend more money on more precise weapons or more surgical planning, or pay restitution as a result of their military action. That seems to raise military-related spending."

Drane sighs. "Yes, I saw where you said that, but you can make the same allegations in regard to any similar resolution. Like.... Just a moment, please," he says as he extracts his copy of "Passed General Assembly Resolutions" from a satchel and quickly leafs through the pages. "Sorry, I don't have all of these memorized quite yet," he says, then stops and points. "Resolution #121. Prohibits targeting of medical facilities. Global Disarmament. Now, I'm not just citing this as precedent. This resolution tells me that nations already must spend quite a bit on weapons precision, just to be sure they don't hit unintended targets like medical facilities. Therefore, precision should already be high enough to avoid attacking other critical services. Nor am I buying into your 'more surgical planning' argument. The differential in the costs of planning a hundred missile attacks versus that of ninety-five missile attacks is negligible, compared to the millions of bucks worth of ordnance that would sit unused."

Drane puts down his copy of the proposal and nods. "If the net effect of your proposal is that there are less targets to hit, then over time fewer and fewer weapons will be used; one could even argue that the costs of weapons will decrease over time solely if there is less demand. Ambassador, I am quite certain, this is a Global Disarmament proposal, much like Resolution #121."

[Separatist Peoples]

Drane sighs. "Yes, I saw where you said that, but you can make the same allegations in regard to any similar resolution. Like.... Just a moment, please," he says as he extracts his copy of "Passed General Assembly Resolutions" from a satchel and quickly leafs through the pages. "Sorry, I don't have all of these memorized quite yet," he says, then stops and points. "Resolution #121. Prohibits targeting of medical facilities. Global Disarmament. Now, I'm not just citing this as precedent. This resolution tells me that nations already must spend quite a bit on weapons precision, just to be sure they don't hit unintended targets like medical facilities. Therefore, precision should already be high enough to avoid attacking other critical services. Nor am I buying into your 'more surgical planning' argument. The differential in the costs of planning a hundred missile attacks versus that of ninety-five missile attacks is negligible, compared to the millions of bucks worth of ordnance that would sit unused."

Drane puts down his copy of the proposal and nods. "If the net effect of your proposal is that there are less targets to hit, then over time fewer and fewer weapons will be used; one could even argue that the costs of weapons will decrease over time solely if there is less demand. Ambassador, I am quite certain, this is a Global Disarmament proposal, much like Resolution #121."

Bell sighs. "Then vote against. International Security does better at vote, and I have made the same case in favor of that category as other resolutions, specifically nuclear resolutions, make. I am not making this Global Disarmament when any other category is applicable. That is simply a matter of political expedience. If it is good enough for GAR#356, it is good enough here."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I might also point out, as a general note, that this compels national governments to establish something as a crime and to prosecute such crimes, which is unquestionably the realm of IS."

[Imperial Polk County]

Bell sighs. "Then vote against. International Security does better at vote, and I have made the same case in favor of that category as other resolutions, specifically nuclear resolutions, make. I am not making this Global Disarmament when any other category is applicable. That is simply a matter of political expedience. If it is good enough for GAR#356, it is good enough here."

Drane shakes his head. "Oh bless your heart, Ambassador, where shall I begin. Firstly I won't be voting against. We're on the same side here, sir, neither of us wants to needlessly lay waste to infrastructure when it's not necessary. Now with all due respect, the argument that one category 'does better at vote' holds no water with me; if this clearly belongs in one category then that's where it belongs, regardless of the perception or proclivity of the voters. And, Resolution #356 is an unfair comparison. There's a great deal of expenditure required to remove non-compliant landmines, to upgrade them with failsafe features, and to dispose of stockpiles of now-useless weapons, whereas in this proposal there are no such overwhelming expenditures. Here, the savings on unexpended but still useful weapons alone, again, greatly outweighs the smaller expenditures in this case."

"I might also point out, as a general note, that this compels national governments to establish something as a crime and to prosecute such crimes, which is unquestionably the realm of IS."

"Oh, there are probably a dozen resolutions that establish something as a crime and call for criminal prosecution, yet that alone does not place them in International Security. Like, Resolution #348, Convention on Ceasefires, which establishes certain violations as war crimes, and yet, is a Global Disarmament resolution. And Resolution #345, which establishes the use of living shields as a crime, yet it is in Human Rights. Then there's Resolution #340, and Resolution #334, and Resolution #317, and...."

Drane suddenly stops and swallows a bit as he looks to Ambassador Bell, then to his notes, then to Bell. He smiles nervously.

"Oh. Did... did you write all of those resolutions, Ambassador? Heh heh. Well. I guess I don't need to remind you what they all say and do, do I? I'd like to mention, not only are you quite prolific but you write wonderfully, very clear, very detailed, Ambassador. Now. That said, in all of these cases, if someone's being prosecuted, it's only applicable to the extremely rare cases where someone doesn't comply with international legislation, and the costs of such infrequent prosecution of non-compliant parties greatly pales in comparison to the remainder of each resolution's effects. The same would go for this proposal, Ambassador. Such costs are insignificant when compared to the reduced expenditures on weapons. And so, I repeat, for this proposal, the net effect is very clearly reduced spending on weaponry, which is Global Disarmament."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: file a challenge or vote against. I'm not changing it. I've explained why GD is inappropriate, and frankly, I'd rather not submit this at all than submit it in a category that doesn't have a statistical effect relative to the enforcement action that is the entire point of this legislation.

This is part of a greater effort to make certain wartime actions causes of legal action. That involves enforcement, not the purchase of fewer guns. I can't help it if you can't see that.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I have added a clause to end this utterly inane bickering about the category."

[The Egyptian Pharocracial Suzerainty]

Opposed. Will vote against.

[Imperial Polk County]

Ooc: file a challenge or vote against. I'm not changing it. I've explained why GD is inappropriate, and frankly, I'd rather not submit this at all than submit it in a category that doesn't have a statistical effect relative to the enforcement action that is the entire point of this legislation.

This is part of a greater effort to make certain wartime actions causes of legal action. That involves enforcement, not the purchase of fewer guns. I can't help it if you can't see that.

OOC Then maybe it's just me but I don't see it. Like I said, same as every other piece of legislation you and others have written that makes something a war crime, the fact that something is a war crime doesn't mean enforcement is where the greatest effect lies. If the cost of enforcement is far outweighed by the economic benefit of less targeting --> fewer launches --> fewer weapons, then no matter how you spin it it doesn't belong in IS. And no, I don't want to file a challenge, and I don't want to vote against it either. I just want to make sure it's legal. That's all. Don't you want the same thing?

"I have added a clause to end this utterly inane bickering about the category."

Drane mutters to himself, "Inane bickering. Huh. It's like arguing with a manatee, I swear." He reads the new clause, and rolls his eyes. "Oh yeah, that makes all the difference, thank you."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The category is fine. I agree with Separatist Peoples, file a challenge or vote against. Boring conversation anyway.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC Then maybe it's just me but I don't see it. Like I said, same as every other piece of legislation you and others have written that makes something a war crime, the fact that something is a war crime doesn't mean enforcement is where the greatest effect lies. If the cost of enforcement is far outweighed by the economic benefit of less targeting --> fewer launches --> fewer weapons, then no matter how you spin it it doesn't belong in IS. And no, I don't want to file a challenge, and I don't want to vote against it either. I just want to make sure it's legal. That's all. Don't you want the same thing?

OOC: I know it's legal. The same rationale has supported the choice of IS over GD in past drafting. My resolutions previously were geared to protecting individuals from direct attack. This prevents them indirect harm, and doesn't merit Human Rights to the same degree.

Drane mutters to himself, "Inane bickering. Huh. It's like arguing with a manatee, I swear." He reads the new clause, and rolls his eyes. "Oh yeah, that makes all the difference, thank you."

"Excellent, ambassador. Glad I could address your concerns."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Clause Six is atrocious. Opposed.