[DRAFT] Crimes Against Peace

[Auralia]

What exactly would a military response to a World Assembly proposal or resolution consist of? A World Assembly proposal or resolution is not an entity that one can go to war with.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Teran Saber: "I'm not talking about declaring war on the proposal. I'm talking about declaring war on the nation making the proposal. In such a situation where a proposal would directly dismantle a nation's government, economy or infrastructure, and the author of the proposal is not willing to discuss the issue, at that point the author's nation is threatening the existence of the nation that would be negatively affected by the proposal."

I think that would be a gross abuse of the concept of "self-defense", given that such a nation would still have the option to peacefully leave the World Assembly.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium has no objections to this Legislation." Says Seretis, who entered alone, and after making his statements, quickly makes his exit.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "I'm not talking about declaring war on the proposal. I'm talking about declaring war on the nation making the proposal. In such a situation where a proposal would directly dismantle a nation's government, economy or infrastructure, and the author of the proposal is not willing to discuss the issue, at that point the author's nation is threatening the existence of the nation that would be negatively affected by the proposal."

I think that would be a gross abuse of the concept of "self-defense", given that such a nation would still have the option to peacefully leave the World Assembly.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Teran Saber: "So, in other words, you're suggesting that the only acceptable option is to essentially remove our voice from the World Assembly. Well, you've shown your hand."

"In such situations, the Greater Siriusian Domain will simply take a page out of Auralia's book when it comes to this proposal."

Ambassador Teran Saber passes out copies of a document detailing Auralia's refusal to comply with multiple world assembly resolutions.

Teran Saber: "Ambassador Russell, Auralia is willfully non-compliant with GAR#91, GAR#128 and GAR#286, and for reasons that are far less important than the very existence of your nation. So, if you are willing to violate WA legislation due to religious and philosophical reasons, then we see no reason to comply with WA legislation when such law would threaten our existence as a nation or prevent us from protecting ourselves should another nation attempt to pass such legislation with hostile intent."

"I believe your term for what has happened here is 'checkmate'."

[Auralia]

Teran Saber: "Ambassador Russell, Auralia is willfully non-compliant with GAR#91, GAR#128 and GAR#286, and for reasons that are far less important than the very existence of your nation. So, if you are willing to violate WA legislation due to religious and philosophical reasons, then we see no reason to comply with WA legislation when such law would threaten our existence as a nation or prevent us from protecting ourselves should another nation attempt to pass such legislation with hostile intent."

We refuse to comply with World Assembly legislation that we believe violates the objective moral law.

A ban on unjust wars does not violate the objective moral law.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

((OOC: Upped the strength to Strong.

Any further comments prior to submission?))

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: It is a universal axiom that the most important duty of any state, regardless of politics, form of government or creed, is to protect its own citizens from external threats and it is also an unfortunate but unavoidable fact that in order to fulfil these ends, a state may, as a last resort, have no choice but to engage in military hostilities. For the most part, the Auralian Delegation's draft proposal recognises this and exempts member states in such circumstances from being held legally responsible for committing crimes against peace.

However, there is an issue.

Imagine, if you will, that a member state gathers intelligence confirming with a high degree of certainty that an aggressive neighbour is preparing to invade and annex its territory. As this neighbour is not a member state of the World Assembly, it is not bound by international law, and it just so happens that the member state in question has no reliable military allies, so it has to deal with the threat by itself. It initially attempts to impose diplomatic pressure and trade embargoes in order to protect itself, but to no avail. Clearly, the expected benefit of a successful military campaign on the part of the member state, which is the continued security of its citizens, balances out the expected harm of such a campaign, which is the opposite.

It is the hope of our Delegation that the member states of this august assembly are in agreement that in such a situation, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the aforementioned member state would be committing a crime against peace on the basis that they have utilised the most reasonable method by which they are able to fulfil the most fundamental duties of any just state, even in the event that the probability of a successful military campaign is as low as 1%, for if they were to ignore the threat, it would be both a certain failure and a dereliction of duty.

Yet this proposal, in its present form, mandates just that. We have highlighted the relevant sections of Clause Three:

Recognizes as a crime against peace any initiation of armed conflict that:

1. is not taken for the primary purpose of:
   
   1. individual or collective self-defense against the target state or against a violent non-state actor operating in the target state, including preemptive action in the face of imminent attack or severe threats to national security, or
   2. halting widespread and repeated violations of international human rights law that are being committed by the target state or a violent non-state actor operating in the target state, but only if there is clear and substantial evidence that this is actually occurring,
2. violates international law or a treaty to which the member state is a party,
3. is taken by a non-state actor,
4. has no reasonable prospect for success,
5. is taken prior to exhausting all reasonable alternatives to conflict, or
6. has expected benefits that are grossly disproportionately smaller than the expected harms,

as well as attempting to, conspiring to, actively participating in, or inciting others to commit any of the same;

As the use of the word 'or' implies, the hypothetical member state would be held liable to crimes against peace as condition (d) is true, even though every other condition is false. This, in our eyes, is unacceptable. Even if we assume that the prospect of success is unreasonable, as it would be if the probability were 1%, it is at least existent; on the other hand, in our example, if no military action is taken, the prospect of success is nil. How is it right, therefore, that a reasonable member state acting in its legitimate interest is considered to be guilty of committing a crime so severe that it is able to be prosecuted under universal jurisdiction?

Our Delegation has discussed this matter among ourselves and we are all unable to justify the continued presence of Clause 3(d) in its current form. Thus, our advice would be either to strike out the word 'reasonable' or to delete the clause in its entirety.

Fairburn: (to Neville) Why can't you be that well-spoken?

Neville: (to Fairburn) Why can't you be that well-spoken? You're the Ambassador here, not me.

OOC: I know that it is considered "obstructionist" by certain individuals to bring up potential legality issues in drafting threads, but recent GenSec opinions on the 'House of Cards' rule have left me genuinely confused.

Is Clause Two:

Declares that crimes against peace are a classification of crimes for which there is universal jurisdiction under World Assembly law;

...reliant on the existence of GA #312 a.k.a. On Universal Jurisdiction? Surely, if that resolution is repealed, Clause Two would be completely meaningless as crimes against peace can't be under universal jurisdiction in accordance with WA law if WA law doesn't recognise universal jurisdiction! I'm not well-versed in what the current test for the 'House of Cards' rule is, but it seems to me that without On Universal Jurisdiction, this clause would be completely gutted.

[Wallenburg]

"This proposal would ban freedom fighters from overthrowing occupying or tyrannical governments. It would ban them from defending themselves against systematic extermination. It bans member states from responding to internal terrorist threats and insurrectionists. It would even ban nations from defending themselves against militarily overwhelming aggressors. We are absolutely opposed to this extreme threat to the survival of countless member states and peoples."

[Aclion]

Declares that crimes against peace are a classification of crimes for which there is universal jurisdiction under World Assembly law;

...reliant on the existence of GA #312 a.k.a. On Universal Jurisdiction? Surely, if that resolution is repealed, Clause Two would be completely meaningless as crimes against peace can't be under universal jurisdiction in accordance with WA law if WA law doesn't recognise universal jurisdiction! I'm not well-versed in what the current test for the 'House of Cards' rule is, but it seems to me that without On Universal Jurisdiction, this clause would be completely gutted.

That clause can be read on it's own as a formal declaration by the world assembly that there is universal jurisdiction for crimes against peace. GenSec has established the convention that when a legal and an illegal interpretation both exist they will favor the legal one. I'm more worried on the reliance on the term 'universal jurisdiction' On Universal Jurisdiction is very careful to ensure that it's not legislating on nonmembers while this resolution requires member nations to enforce WA law regardless of whether violations occurred under the jurisdiction or a WA nation.

[Freiesterre]

"The Progressive Commonwealth of Freiesterre is in full support of the current draft of this resolution. This is possibly the best step towards protecting peace since the founding of the World Assembly."
- Leopold Organa, Freiesterrean Diplomat

[Auralia]

As the use of the word 'or' implies, the hypothetical member state would be held liable to crimes against peace as condition (d) is true, even though every other condition is false. This, in our eyes, is unacceptable. Even if we assume that the prospect of success is unreasonable, as it would be if the probability were 1%, it is at least existent; on the other hand, in our example, if no military action is taken, the prospect of success is nil. How is it right, therefore, that a reasonable member state acting in its legitimate interest is considered to be guilty of committing a crime so severe that it is able to be prosecuted under universal jurisdiction?

The intent of this clause is to require that member states not throw away the lives of their citizenry for no reason. Armed conflict should only be pursued if there is a reasonable prospect that things will be better off than they were before:

...whatever may be thought of an individual's entitlement to hazard or lose his or her life ('death before dishonour', or the like), it cannot be right for a national leader, responsible for the good of all the people, to undertake -- or prolong -- armed conflict, whith all the loss of life and other harm that entails, if there is no reasonable likelihood that this would achieve a better outcome for the people than would result from rejecting or ending combat and simply doing whatever is possible by other means.

But "success" does not necessarily mean defeating the opposing force:

It is entirely possible to envisage circumstances in which something other than victory, at least in the classical military sense, can legitimately be rated as success. Preventing an aggressor from getting what he wants, even if this forces are not militarily defeated, can be so counted. There may even, though more rarely, be situations in which military defeat can qualify as adequate success if the fact of substantial resistance leads to an outcome less harmful than would have resulted from immediate capitulation.

I'll replace "success" with "achieving its defined objectives" to make this point clear.

"This proposal would ban freedom fighters from overthrowing occupying or tyrannical governments. It would ban them from defending themselves against systematic extermination. It bans member states from responding to internal terrorist threats and insurrectionists.

This proposal does not regulate purely domestic initiations of armed conflict; see clause 7(b).

It would even ban nations from defending themselves against militarily overwhelming aggressors.

See my response above.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[JuMe]

Ranking in the top 10% of most compassionate nations in the world, JuMe applauds this proposal and encourages other nations to abolish war and crimes against peace.

[States of Glory WA Office]

As the use of the word 'or' implies, the hypothetical member state would be held liable to crimes against peace as condition (d) is true, even though every other condition is false. This, in our eyes, is unacceptable. Even if we assume that the prospect of success is unreasonable, as it would be if the probability were 1%, it is at least existent; on the other hand, in our example, if no military action is taken, the prospect of success is nil. How is it right, therefore, that a reasonable member state acting in its legitimate interest is considered to be guilty of committing a crime so severe that it is able to be prosecuted under universal jurisdiction?

The intent of this clause is to require that member states not throw away the lives of their citizenry for no reason. Armed conflict should only be pursued if there is a reasonable prospect that things will be better off than they were before:

Barbera: Whilst this certainly helps our Delegation in determining the purpose behind the inclusion, we are confused as to how Clause 3(f) does not already fulfil your aim, Ambassador Russell.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Ambassador Russell, Auralia is willfully non-compliant with GAR#91, GAR#128 and GAR#286, and for reasons that are far less important than the very existence of your nation. So, if you are willing to violate WA legislation due to religious and philosophical reasons, then we see no reason to comply with WA legislation when such law would threaten our existence as a nation or prevent us from protecting ourselves should another nation attempt to pass such legislation with hostile intent."

We refuse to comply with World Assembly legislation that we believe violates the objective moral law.

A ban on unjust wars does not violate the objective moral law.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Teran Saber: "You do not believe that utilizing the World Assembly to illegitimize the very existence of a nation violates moral law either, then? Fine. Next time there's a proposal that indirectly bans theocracies, you know where my vote is going to go."

"Ambassador Russell, you've outright made an enemy of the Greater Siriusian Domain, and that is something that has not happened since the Siriusian Civil War. I hope for your sake you've realized how far you've gone to reach this point."