[Draft] Defense of Critical Services

[Mallorea and Riva]

In a minefield, probably. *crickets*

I still think the category is wrong, but I know that's probably an unpopular opinion among people trying to cram things into IntSec (everyone, since the beginning). What edits did you make today to the OP?

OOC: precedent suggests the category works.
Also, I deleted the last line that you and SL criticized.

I'm aware of the precedent, and I think the precedent is wrong

Gotcha, I couldn't remember exactly what the clause was but I figured it was either removed or heavily edited.

[Aclion]

OOC: precedent suggests the category works.
Also, I deleted the last line that you and SL criticized.

I'm aware of the precedent, and I think the precedent is wrong

Then the precedent is almost certainly correct.

[Old Hope]

OOC:This proposal seems to limit the usage of weaponry; can someone tell me why this is not Global Disarmament instead of International Security? It might create a paper trail(during wartime), but it also removes the necessity to defend critical services from other member nations in times of war(and costly attacks aimed at those).

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:This proposal seems to limit the usage of weaponry; can someone tell me why this is not Global Disarmament instead of International Security? It might create a paper trail(during wartime), but it also removes the necessity to defend critical services from other member nations in times of war(and costly attacks aimed at those).

Ooc: it doesnt.

[New Periapsis]

The nation of New Periapsis gives this proposal our full support.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bump. Added some clarifications because of the litigious nature of the GA.

[Araraukar]

"So what happens if a civilian guerrilla group decides to, let's say blow up a major dam, without any approval from their government, to deny the power generation and water resources to the invaders?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"So what happens if a civilian guerrilla group decides to, let's say blow up a major dam, without any approval from their government, to deny the power generation and water resources to the invaders?"

"I imagine that, were they successful, there would be a big flood, followed by power and water scarcity."

[Araraukar]

"So what happens if a civilian guerrilla group decides to, let's say blow up a major dam, without any approval from their government, to deny the power generation and water resources to the invaders?"

"I imagine that, were they successful, there would be a big flood, followed by power and water scarcity."

"I meant, is it a war crime? Given that they are acting without any directions or approval of the state or indeed any kind of higher authority. Are they terrorists? They're only acting to deny the invaders the use of the infrastructure, during a war."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I imagine that, were they successful, there would be a big flood, followed by power and water scarcity."

"I meant, is it a war crime? Given that they are acting without any directions or approval of the state or indeed any kind of higher authority. Are they terrorists? They're only acting to deny the invaders the use of the infrastructure, during a war."

"If they aren't operating as part of the government, then they are not engaged in war crimes. They are certainly engaged in terrorism, but not war crimes. This isn't really an issue, since the threat of punishment from a war crime is meant to deter people from engaging in certain bad acts. Terrorists are already engaged in illegal, bad acts. They aren't deterred. I suppose I could change wording to "belligerent," but I gotta wonder at what point I'm getting diminishing returns on deterrence by slapping war crime charges on top of terrorism charges."

[Araraukar]

They are certainly engaged in terrorism, but not war crimes.

"One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. But if they do not count as war crimes, then that is the answer I was looking for. Thank you."

[Whovian Tardisia]

"We support the current draft, however, this

The World Assembly:

"Critical services" are all infrastructure, systems, or devices...

does not make grammatical sense. We suggest an edit to this."

The World Assembly declares that:

"Critical services" are all infrastructure, systems, or devices...

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: the only issue raised here has been the category, which I belive recent rulings have satisfied. Absent additional feedback, I will likely submit this with PRiW.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: PRiW had an issue so I held off. This will likely be submitted after PRiW is at vote and not in need of a campaign, one way or another. Comments are welcome and encouraged. Please point out issues prior to submission.

[Honeydewistania]

"Will this be submitted as ‘Defence’ or ‘Defense’?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Will this be submitted as ‘Defence’ or ‘Defense’?"

"The text of the law prevails over errors in the title line. Defense."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Clause 6: who's -> whose

IC: "Sir, I question the utility of your benefit of the doubt in Clauses Five and Six. Military units which do not strike nuclear power reactors negligently, but on purpose are not required to render assistance to contain radioactive materials. You can say 'why would they anyway' but why minimize the number of possible war crime charges? And having the requirement across the board might be more likely to lead to the forcible relief of a war criminal by subordinates or superiors. I think 'accidentally or negligently' can simply be dropped."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 6: who's -> whose

IC: "Sir, I question the utility of your benefit of the doubt in Clauses Five and Six. Military units which do not strike nuclear power reactors negligently, but on purpose are not required to render assistance to contain radioactive materials. You can say 'why would they anyway' but why minimize the number of possible war crime charges? And having the requirement across the board might be more likely to lead to the forcible relief of a war criminal by subordinates or superiors. I think 'accidentally or negligently' can simply be dropped."

"But the previous clause bans intentionally doing so. The accident or negligence angle is simply to cover all the bases."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Clause 6: who's -> whose

IC: "Sir, I question the utility of your benefit of the doubt in Clauses Five and Six. Military units which do not strike nuclear power reactors negligently, but on purpose are not required to render assistance to contain radioactive materials. You can say 'why would they anyway' but why minimize the number of possible war crime charges? And having the requirement across the board might be more likely to lead to the forcible relief of a war criminal by subordinates or superiors. I think 'accidentally or negligently' can simply be dropped."

" This is a fair point. I excluded intentional strikes because I did not expect any credible entity to do so and then actually render aid, but if a member state so happily violates the law, I see no reason to spare them a few extra charges when the bell tolls for them."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I honestly was sick of drafting proposals since...2017? 2018? Anyway you miserable bunch of rules lawyers, let's try again.

[Tinhampton]

Article 7 is inconsistent with statute style, you inconsistently end clauses with semicolons and full stops, and "who's" in Article 6 should say "whose." Otherwise, support. I assume the bump was motivated by the Ukraine dam bombing ~24hrs ago.

[Separatist Peoples]

Article 7 is inconsistent with statute style, you inconsistently end clauses with semicolons and full stops, and "who's" in Article 6 should say "whose." Otherwise, support. I assume the bump was motivated by the Ukraine dam bombing ~24hrs ago.

Ooc: Nah, IA asked about it.

[Southwest Zumarik]

Article 7 is inconsistent with statute style, you inconsistently end clauses with semicolons and full stops, and "who's" in Article 6 should say "whose." Otherwise, support. I assume the bump was motivated by the Ukraine dam bombing ~24hrs ago.