NationStates

The Imperial Frost Federation wrote:Ambassador Bell, can nations still conduct reconstruction efforts in occupied territory if the surviving enemy government disapproves or does the opposing government lack jurisdiction in the occupied territories? If its the latter this will free up a considerable amount of bureaucratic red tape to restore critical services to pre-conflict levels.

"No, reconstruction effort must be approved by the surviving government, if there is one. Article II, Clause 3. Rather like helping somebody up that you knocked down, intentionally or otherwise, if they wave you off and tell you no, you stand back regardless of social convention."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Energy packs. Arrows."
OOC: We write to MT because MT is the most common tech period.

So, do you believe ammunition is always a factor or not?

Separatist Peoples wrote:In your painfully primitive example,

You still haven't said why this is such a far-fetched scenario.

Separatist Peoples wrote:most cities have a food storage surplus for exactly this reason. As a result, the farms might not be critical to survival.

Exactly. And at first glace it seems you addressed the "not critical to survival" issue in Article 1. Except...

Separatist Peoples wrote:a. Are indispensable for civilian health and safety, or;

b. Are exclusively used by civilians;

The current wording of clause 1 makes it illegal to destroy a farm even if it is not "indispensable for civilian health and safety". The member nation would not be able to destroy the farms even if the city had plenty of food stored. Perhaps if you changed that "or" to an "and", the besieged city scenario would finally be resolved.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"And I addressed that. Civilians are not an expendable resource, and the text deals with that situation. As I noted above."

The text, due to that "or" in clause 1, currently does not deal with the situation. See above.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"That isn't desperate, that's full on braindead. Burned farms don't produce food after the conflict. Die now or die later. Beautiful situation, let me tell you."

Again, food stores can take care of that. And the burned farms would, after a while, start producing again. See above.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I see we're still dealing with a kind of warfare that is long outdated. Most WA laws aren't in place for the primary benefit of medieval states, ambassador. Unless the Civilian Aircraft Protocol applies to flying arrows."

What's so outdated about inability to send resources?

Separatist Peoples wrote:"What is important to me, ambassador, is ensuring civilians are not deprived the infrastructure that keeps them alive."

And they might not need it to stay alive if they have food stores. See above.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Well, ambassador, does espionage involve combat? You know better than that."

"Conflict", not "combat". I was asking if espionage involved "conflict".

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm not suggesting it, I'm directly questioning the quality of your military education."

I think I have the documents somewhere in this binder... here they are. Essay on the Molthuni Wars: 97%. Analysis on the Subethian Revolution: 99%. Exam on eastern European defense tactics: 96%. Exam on general post-industrial battle strategy: 100%. From the University of Florinth, in Umeria. Is that quality enough for you?

Separatist Peoples wrote:"No, I didn't. I moved it."

Well, the espionage scenario is still moot.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The Imperial Frost Federation wrote:Ambassador Bell, can nations still conduct reconstruction efforts in occupied territory if the surviving enemy government disapproves or does the opposing government lack jurisdiction in the occupied territories? If its the latter this will free up a considerable amount of bureaucratic red tape to restore critical services to pre-conflict levels.

"No, reconstruction effort must be approved by the surviving government, if there is one. Article II, Clause 3. Rather like helping somebody up that you knocked down, intentionally or otherwise, if they wave you off and tell you no, you stand back regardless of social convention."

"That is most unfortunate, but I'm sure my country's army engineer corps can restore critical services before the end of hostilities. In addition the IFF will support this considering that this will reduce unnecessary casualties" replied Lt. Albert Nakiri.

Umeria wrote:So, do you believe ammunition is always a factor or not?

"I believe ammunition, fuel, and replacement parts have greater impetus in supply lines than food. I'm not going to entertain your iron age fantasies."

You still haven't said why this is such a far-fetched scenario.

"Because besieging a city no longer requires trebuchets."

The current wording of clause 1 makes it illegal to destroy a farm even if it is not "indispensable for civilian health and safety". The member nation would not be able to destroy the farms even if the city had plenty of food stored. Perhaps if you changed that "or" to an "and", the besieged city scenario would finally be resolved.

"The word "OR" had already been included at the time you mentioned this."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

1. 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;

b. Are exclusively used by civilians;

Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:46 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Postby Umeria » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:17 am

Again, food stores can take care of that. And the burned farms would, after a while, start producing again. See above.

"Only if you're lucky enough to have a full growing season and can survive until the next harvest."

And they might not need it to stay alive if they have food stores. See above.

"If they do, your hypothetical farms are not critical infrastructure. We're going in circles, it seems."

"Conflict", not "combat". I was asking if espionage involved "conflict".

"Espionage requires no conflict as it is clearly intended in extant law. Espionage can occur in peacetime without any violence."

I think I have the documents somewhere in this binder... here they are. Essay on the Molthuni Wars: 97%. Analysis on the Subethian Revolution: 99%. Exam on eastern European defense tactics: 96%. Exam on general post-industrial battle strategy: 100%. From the University of Florinth, in Umeria. Is that quality enough for you?

"Only if the institution was in any way notable as an accredited institution. What you scored on your online quiz is irrelevant to me and this discussion, especially given your application of that vaunted education. Save it for the Bar or something, but I can't say I care to hear you recite your resume here."

Well, the espionage scenario is still moot.

"The espionage scenario has been moot the entire time, trust me."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I believe ammunition, fuel, and replacement parts have greater impetus in supply lines than food. I'm not going to entertain your iron age fantasies."

Fantasy? I was just presenting a hypothetical- oh, never mind.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Because besieging a city no longer requires trebuchets."

Okay, fine.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The word "OR" had already been included at the time you mentioned this."

Did you not hear me correctly? My suggestion was that the "or" should be removed and replaced with an "and".

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Only if you're lucky enough to have a full growing season and can survive until the next harvest."

My point was that your resolution currently makes burning your farms, even if you have plenty of food stored, illegal because of that "or". See above.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"If they do, your hypothetical farms are not critical infrastructure. We're going in circles, it seems."

Maybe they aren't critical infrastructure, but if they're "exclusively used by civilians", they're illegal to burn because of that "or".

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Espionage requires no conflict as it is clearly intended in extant law. Espionage can occur in peacetime without any violence."

Thank you for answering my question, albeit belatedly.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Only if the institution was in any way notable as an accredited institution. What you scored on your online quiz is irrelevant to me and this discussion, especially given your application of that vaunted education. Save it for the Bar or something, but I can't say I care to hear you recite your resume here."

OOC: Seriously? NS is a big place; there are plenty of excellent universities Bell hasn't heard of. Florinth is a quiet little university, but it happens to be one of the most qualified and efficient universities in Europe. Besides, you really shouldn't be criticizing the Umerian education system.

IC: Carlyle calmly hands Bell a set of documents detailing the University of Florinth's 377-year history, as well as a brief description of 42 scientists and professors who graduated from the Florinth and their accomplishments.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The espionage scenario has been moot the entire time, trust me."

So we agree. Good.

Umeria wrote:My point was that your resolution currently makes burning your farms, even if you have plenty of food stored, illegal because of that "or". See above.

"And this is a problem? Ambassador, even though the Imperium has vast amounts supplies stored in the unlikely event of an Invasion of the Interior Territories, burning designated agricultural worlds would be a blow from which the Imperium would take many years to recover from. Simply because a State has ample reserves, does not mean that destroying their production facilities is not crippling."

Umeria wrote:OOC: Seriously? NS is a big place; there are plenty of excellent universities Bell hasn't heard of. Florinth is a quiet little university, but it happens to be one of the most qualified and efficient universities in Europe. Besides, you really shouldn't be criticizing the Umerian education system.

OOC:
Please don't resort to Statwank

Umeria wrote:OOC: Seriously? NS is a big place; there are plenty of excellent universities Bell hasn't heard of. Florinth is a quiet little university, but it happens to be one of the most qualified and efficient universities in Europe. Besides, you really shouldn't be criticizing the Umerian education system.

Neither is the betterest. Wallenburg smarter than all both of you. Petty statwank make Wallenburg angry!

Umeria wrote:Did you not hear me correctly? My suggestion was that the "or" should be removed and replaced with an "and".

"Ah, yes, I did mishear you. No. I won't make that change, because it guts the proposal. It makes attacking public infrastructure used by civilians that isn't critical fair game, which invites abuse against civilians. World Assembly nations should contain their warfare to targets of necessity, and not just those of opportunity. To take it to your silly farm example, there is a law that protects private property from wanton destruction, Wartime Looting and Pillage, so I assume that these farms are public farms. If they are public farms, and do not serve to benefit any military forces, there is no reason to destroy them beyond deliberately harming civilians, be they your own or the enemy's. If they are used by military forces, they are a valid target if and only if civilians do not rely on them for survival. So, if the enemy is using these public farms, and the civilians have an alternative supply of food, you can burn them. But your actions cannot deprive civilians of their only access to, in this case, food. I will not change that."

My point was that your resolution currently makes burning your farms, even if you have plenty of food stored, illegal because of that "or". See above.

"If such farms have no military utility, there is no need to burn them."

Maybe they aren't critical infrastructure, but if they're "exclusively used by civilians", they're illegal to burn because of that "or".

"Yes. That was intentional. Part of the whole "protecting civilians" thing I'm noted for."

Carlyle calmly hands Bell a set of documents detailing the University of Florinth's 377-year history, as well as a brief description of 42 scientists and professors who graduated from the Florinth and their accomplishments.

Bell pushes the paperwork directly into a waste bin. "This is not a community college fair, ambassador. Kindly turn your attention to the draft."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Umeria wrote:Did you not hear me correctly? My suggestion was that the "or" should be removed and replaced with an "and".

"Ah, yes, I did mishear you. No. I won't make that change, because it guts the proposal. It makes attacking public infrastructure used by civilians that isn't critical fair game, which invites abuse against civilians. World Assembly nations should contain their warfare to targets of necessity, and not just those of opportunity. To take it to your silly farm example, there is a law that protects private property from wanton destruction, Wartime Looting and Pillage, so I assume that these farms are public farms. If they are public farms, and do not serve to benefit any military forces, there is no reason to destroy them beyond deliberately harming civilians, be they your own or the enemy's. If they are used by military forces, they are a valid target if and only if civilians do not rely on them for survival. So, if the enemy is using these public farms, and the civilians have an alternative supply of food, you can burn them. But your actions cannot deprive civilians of their only access to, in this case, food. I will not change that."

My point was that your resolution currently makes burning your farms, even if you have plenty of food stored, illegal because of that "or". See above.

"If such farms have no military utility, there is no need to burn them."

Maybe they aren't critical infrastructure, but if they're "exclusively used by civilians", they're illegal to burn because of that "or".

"Yes. That was intentional. Part of the whole "protecting civilians" thing I'm noted for."

Okay. You win. I'm sorry.

OOC: ...It seems everything I had to say about this proposal was a complete waste of time... ...I really hope I didn't sound like an obnoxious novice when I made those points... Forgive me for making such rude assumptions.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Bell pushes the paperwork directly into a waste bin. "This is not a community college fair, ambassador. Kindly turn your attention to the draft."

I just brought that up to prove that I had legitimate military education. As for the draft, I have nothing more to say about it, except that Umeria, for the time being, will support it.

Umeria wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Ah, yes, I did mishear you. No. I won't make that change, because it guts the proposal. It makes attacking public infrastructure used by civilians that isn't critical fair game, which invites abuse against civilians. World Assembly nations should contain their warfare to targets of necessity, and not just those of opportunity. To take it to your silly farm example, there is a law that protects private property from wanton destruction, Wartime Looting and Pillage, so I assume that these farms are public farms. If they are public farms, and do not serve to benefit any military forces, there is no reason to destroy them beyond deliberately harming civilians, be they your own or the enemy's. If they are used by military forces, they are a valid target if and only if civilians do not rely on them for survival. So, if the enemy is using these public farms, and the civilians have an alternative supply of food, you can burn them. But your actions cannot deprive civilians of their only access to, in this case, food. I will not change that."


"If such farms have no military utility, there is no need to burn them."

"Yes. That was intentional. Part of the whole "protecting civilians" thing I'm noted for."

Okay. You win. I'm sorry.

OOC: ...It seems everything I had to say about this proposal was a complete waste of time... ...I really hope I didn't sound like an obnoxious novice when I made those points... Forgive me for making such rude assumptions.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Bell pushes the paperwork directly into a waste bin. "This is not a community college fair, ambassador. Kindly turn your attention to the draft."

I just brought that up to prove that I had legitimate military education. As for the draft, I have nothing more to say about it, except that Umeria, for the time being, will support it.

OOC: Don't worry about it! That was a particularly fun interpersonal dynamic that doesn't always get to play out in a controlled fashion. I never liked the idea that all the ambassadors were buddy-buddy, and this nation ranks particularly high on the Rudeness scale. I try to balance statistical adherence with functional roleplay, and that actually managed to work out pretty well. Lets do it again sometime!

IC:"I appreciate Umerian support in this endeavor. If you have any other concerns, Ambassador Lockwood, I would be happy to hear them."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Umeria wrote:Okay. You win. I'm sorry.

OOC: ...It seems everything I had to say about this proposal was a complete waste of time... ...I really hope I didn't sound like an obnoxious novice when I made those points... Forgive me for making such rude assumptions.

I just brought that up to prove that I had legitimate military education. As for the draft, I have nothing more to say about it, except that Umeria, for the time being, will support it.

OOC: Don't worry about it! That was a particularly fun interpersonal dynamic that doesn't always get to play out in a controlled fashion. I never liked the idea that all the ambassadors were buddy-buddy, and this nation ranks particularly high on the Rudeness scale. I try to balance statistical adherence with functional roleplay, and that actually managed to work out pretty well. Lets do it again sometime!

IC:"I appreciate Umerian support in this endeavor. If you have any other concerns, Ambassador Lockwood, I would be happy to hear them."

OOC: Phew!
IC: Um, I'm not Lockwood, he's away on legal matters. I'm Ambassador Lucy Carlyle, and I'll be substituting for him for a week or two. OOC: Should I mention this in my signature? Nah, a week's not worth it.

OOC: any opinions regarding the title? I wanted to name this Post-Conflict Critical Services Restoration, but that blew the 30 character limit away like the North Side Irish gang on St. Valentine's Day.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: any opinions regarding the title? I wanted to name this Post-Conflict Critical Services Restoration, but that blew the 30 character limit away like the North Side Irish gang on St. Valentine's Day.

Critical Services Preservation?

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: any opinions regarding the title? I wanted to name this Post-Conflict Critical Services Restoration, but that blew the 30 character limit away like the North Side Irish gang on St. Valentine's Day.

Critical Services Preservation?

OOC: I'm seriously contemplating dividing this into Critical Services Preservation and Critical Services Restoration, but I'd have to have a bit more meat for both. That would solve the naming convention, though.

Wallenburg wrote:Neither is the betterest. Wallenburg smarter than all both of you. Petty statwank make Wallenburg angry!

OOC: *cough*

IC:

Separatist Peoples wrote:

1. 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;

b. Are exclusively used by civilians;

What about nations where everyone or practically everyone has undergone military training and is in essence considered part of military reserve? As in, the "civilians" are still technically soldiers? (OOC: RL examples, at least Finland and Switzerland do this, nearly all of the male population are reserve.)

Araraukar wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Neither is the betterest. Wallenburg smarter than all both of you. Petty statwank make Wallenburg angry!

OOC: *cough*

IC:

Separatist Peoples wrote:

1. 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;

b. Are exclusively used by civilians;

What about nations where everyone or practically everyone has undergone military training and is in essence considered part of military reserve? As in, the "civilians" are still technically soldiers? (OOC: RL examples, at least Finland and Switzerland do this, nearly all of the male population are reserve.)

"Having been trained as a solider doesn't classify you as a soldier forever. While such individuals are often treated as a gray area between the two, retired or even on-leave troops are engaging in civilian activities. If they aren't on duty acting in the capacity of their rank and position, there isn't any reason to consider those actions military in a practical sense."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Having been trained as a solider doesn't classify you as a soldier forever. While such individuals are often treated as a gray area between the two, retired or even on-leave troops are engaging in civilian activities. If they aren't on duty acting in the capacity of their rank and position, there isn't any reason to consider those actions military in a practical sense."

I know that, I'm asking about this:

b. Are exclusively used by civilians

Just because a soldier isn't on duty, doesn't make them a civilian. (OOC: In Switzerland those who've done the training literally remain soldiers in the army, but in Finland the reserve are treated as civilians unless Finland declares war, in which case they're called back to service.)

Araraukar wrote:Just because a soldier isn't on duty, doesn't make them a civilian. (OOC: In Switzerland those who've done the training literally remain soldiers in the army, but in Finland the reserve are treated as civilians unless Finland declares war, in which case they're called back to service.)

There's an easy way to solve this: just define "civilian". Clearly, it is a confusing term, so a definitions clause would help clarify it.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: any opinions regarding the title? I wanted to name this Post-Conflict Critical Services Restoration, but that blew the 30 character limit away like the North Side Irish gang on St. Valentine's Day.

I have some other title options, just in case you aren't satisfied with "Defense of Critical Services":

Critical Service Safety
Care of Critical Services
Critical Service Perpetuation
Salvation of Critical Services

Unfortunately, "Critical Service Responsibility" is just one character too long.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Having been trained as a solider doesn't classify you as a soldier forever. While such individuals are often treated as a gray area between the two, retired or even on-leave troops are engaging in civilian activities. If they aren't on duty acting in the capacity of their rank and position, there isn't any reason to consider those actions military in a practical sense."

I know that, I'm asking about this:

b. Are exclusively used by civilians

Just because a soldier isn't on duty, doesn't make them a civilian. (OOC: In Switzerland those who've done the training literally remain soldiers in the army, but in Finland the reserve are treated as civilians unless Finland declares war, in which case they're called back to service.)

"And I'm saying that a solider who is not acting in the capacity of their duties are not engaging in military action, and the infrastructure use wouldn't be classified as military except by nations of masochists. Taking so strict an interpretation only harms member states, especially when the intent of the law is pretty clear."

Separatist Peoples wrote:3. Strictly prohibits belligerent member states from targeting infrastructure that contains dangerous forces, such as dams or nuclear power plants, if such an attack will release the dangerous forces;

Given that nuclear power plants can be used in military roles (i.e. powering aircraft carriers or directed energy weapons), I'd want this section to be revised before I consider this proposal further.

Gogol Transcendancy wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:3. Strictly prohibits belligerent member states from targeting infrastructure that contains dangerous forces, such as dams or nuclear power plants, if such an attack will release the dangerous forces;

Given that nuclear power plants can be used in military roles (i.e. powering aircraft carriers or directed energy weapons), I'd want this section to be revised before I consider this proposal further.

"I can see why you'd be hesitant, but reactors aboard military craft are not really considered infrastructure."

Infrastructure: the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies) needed for the operation of a society

"A quick search for the term infrastructure yields a definition that seems to exclude military vessels like nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, as they aren't physical structures or facilities needed for the operation of society. Arguing that they are necessary for the survival of a society as tools of war seems like a stretch. Certainly, the best way to secure a nuclear reactor on a sunken vessel is to leave it in place, since the ocean effectively insulates the radioactive material, and the recovery would do more damage than ignoring it in most situations. Nonetheless, to avoid concerns regarding military units, I'll look into tweaking the wording. Perhaps the inclusion of ", excepting military vessels, " would do."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"And I'm saying that a solider who is not acting in the capacity of their duties are not engaging in military action, and the infrastructure use wouldn't be classified as military except by nations of masochists. Taking so strict an interpretation only harms member states, especially when the intent of the law is pretty clear."

As I said previously, you could just define "civilian" in the proposal, and this entire discussion would be moot.

Umeria wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"And I'm saying that a solider who is not acting in the capacity of their duties are not engaging in military action, and the infrastructure use wouldn't be classified as military except by nations of masochists. Taking so strict an interpretation only harms member states, especially when the intent of the law is pretty clear."

As I said previously, you could just define "civilian" in the proposal, and this entire discussion would be moot.

"I haven't needed to in about nine resolutions, but I believe that the term "civilian" is widely understood enough to not require definition. Besides, in this instance, member states really shouldn't be targeting military infrastructure containing dangerous forces. Blowing up a military dam would have the same impact as blowing up a civilian dam, and has no necessity when the nearby substations can be destroyed with no release of dangerous forces. The same can be said for immobile military nuclear powerplants that are not powering a vessel, or even a chemical weapons or fuel storage facility. One can remove the utility of the military infrastructure without releasing forces of such magnitude that nearby civilians are in danger, often by destroying nearby facilities the main facility needs to operate."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Umeria wrote:As I said previously, you could just define "civilian" in the proposal, and this entire discussion would be moot.

"I haven't needed to in about nine resolutions, but I believe that the term "civilian" is widely understood enough to not require definition. Besides, in this instance, member states really shouldn't be targeting military infrastructure containing dangerous forces. Blowing up a military dam would have the same impact as blowing up a civilian dam, and has no necessity when the nearby substations can be destroyed with no release of dangerous forces. The same can be said for immobile military nuclear powerplants that are not powering a vessel, or even a chemical weapons or fuel storage facility. One can remove the utility of the military infrastructure without releasing forces of such magnitude that nearby civilians are in danger, often by destroying nearby facilities the main facility needs to operate."

Okay. It just seemed like there was a dispute about it. Never mind.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Gogol Transcendancy wrote:Given that nuclear power plants can be used in military roles (i.e. powering aircraft carriers or directed energy weapons), I'd want this section to be revised before I consider this proposal further.

"I can see why you'd be hesitant, but reactors aboard military craft are not really considered infrastructure."

Infrastructure: the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies) needed for the operation of a society

"A quick search for the term infrastructure yields a definition that seems to exclude military vessels like nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, as they aren't physical structures or facilities needed for the operation of society. Arguing that they are necessary for the survival of a society as tools of war seems like a stretch. Certainly, the best way to secure a nuclear reactor on a sunken vessel is to leave it in place, since the ocean effectively insulates the radioactive material, and the recovery would do more damage than ignoring it in most situations. Nonetheless, to avoid concerns regarding military units, I'll look into tweaking the wording. Perhaps the inclusion of ", excepting military vessels, " would do."

"There's still potential situations where infrastructural reactors can have military uses, such as providing power for directed energy weapons as part of an antiaircraft network. I'd prefer a general exception for any case where such infrastructure is being used to directly power combat assets."