NationStates

Committed to the pursuit of international peace and security among all World Assembly member states,

Seeking to establish criteria for just wars and to prohibit crimes against peace,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines a "initiation of armed conflict", for the purposes of this resolution, as any of the following:
   
   1. a declaration of war against a state, or
   2. a blockade, invasion, or attack, whether by military or paramilitary forces, that breaches an existing peace, whether formal or informal, and that is targeted against another state or a violent non-state actor operating in another state;
2. 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 non-state actor operating in the target state, including preemptive action in the face of imminent attack or severe threats to national security,
      2. halting widespread and repeated violations of international human rights law that are being committed by the target state or a non-state actor operating in the target state, or
      3. another just cause,
   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 of achieving its defined objectives,
   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 engage in such initiation of armed conflict;
   
   
3. Declares that territorial acquisition or subjugation of foreign populations do not constitute a just cause for an initiation of armed conflict;
   
   
4. Prohibits member states from committing crimes against peace;
   
   
5. Requires member states to duly prosecute government officials and other individuals subject to their jurisdiction who bear responsibility for a state or non-state actor committing crimes against peace;
   
   
6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as recognizing the following as crimes against peace, without prejudice to the right of the World Assembly to do so in future:
   
   1. purely domestic initiations of armed conflict, and
   2. initiations of armed conflict against a violent non-state actor with the consent of the state where the conflict occurs.

Blockades are sometimes needed, just for my opinion. If we look back to the Cuba nuclear crisis, it was a blockade that stalled the Russians from giving nuclear weapons to Cuba. While we can roughly argue civil war as a military conflict, without self-defense. While Section 2 may of covered this, if it also covered the ability for the state to defend itself from civil unrest. Which as seen, can create a chaotic war zone with various factions vying for power. While Sections 4 through 6, overly extend the WA's power for National Sovereignty. While it is a good, draft. It is arguable, to support.

"We tentatively support this, ambassador."

"Seeking the abolition of all war as an ultimate vision for the world, United Massachusetts offers strong support for this resolution."

Believing that war is not a legitimate tool of international relations and may not be undertaken for reasons other than... the cessation of human rights violations,

"Unfortunate ambiguity is unfortunate.
I also object to the blanket statement that military actions by non-state actors are crimes against peace. There are times when civilians must take up arms to prevent crimes against humanity." [Consider,as a real life example, the Polish resistance groups that fought the Nazi and Soviet occupations of Poland and saved thousands of Jewish children from death camps]

"The Royal Republic will support your proposal, since it clearly allows for defensive and humanitarian wars. But we would suggest replacing the term "non-state actor" with more narrow terms such as terrorist organization, criminal enterprises, etc. That way the resolution does not forbid actions by, for example, resistance groups who are opposing a dictator."

"I would tighten up some of the definition to make it clear that wars against terrorist organisations and drug cartels are permitted but, other than that, full support."

"Fellow ambassador, we are glad to announce that we will be approving and voting for this proposal. What Kenmoria said should be taken into account."

“We will support at the moment. No objections... yet.”

Principality of the Raix wrote:Blockades are sometimes needed, just for my opinion. If we look back to the Cuba nuclear crisis, it was a blockade that stalled the Russians from giving nuclear weapons to Cuba.

If a blockade cannot be justified as "individual or collective self-defense against the target state or against a violent non-state actor in the target state, including preemptive action in the face of imminent attack or severe threats to national security," then I do not think the blockade should be permitted.

Principality of the Raix wrote:While we can roughly argue civil war as a military conflict, without self-defense. While Section 2 may of covered this, if it also covered the ability for the state to defend itself from civil unrest. Which as seen, can create a chaotic war zone with various factions vying for power.

Domestic military actions are now explicitly exempted from the scope of this proposal by its final clause. I think a separate proposal should govern these.

Aclion wrote:

Believing that war is not a legitimate tool of international relations and may not be undertaken for reasons other than... the cessation of human rights violations,

"Unfortunate ambiguity is unfortunate.

I agree the wording is awkward -- it is now fixed.

Aclion wrote:I also object to the blanket statement that military actions by non-state actors are crimes against peace. There are times when civilians must take up arms to prevent crimes against humanity." [Consider,as a real life example, the Polish resistance groups that fought the Nazi and Soviet occupations of Poland and saved thousands of Jewish children from death camps]

((OOC: Said resistance groups were acting on behalf of the Polish government-in-exile and therefore were not really "non-state actors". However, I have now exempted domestic military actions from this proposal.))

Bruke wrote:"The Royal Republic will support your proposal, since it clearly allows for defensive and humanitarian wars. But we would suggest replacing the term "non-state actor" with more narrow terms such as terrorist organization, criminal enterprises, etc. That way the resolution does not forbid actions by, for example, resistance groups who are opposing a dictator."

Kenmoria wrote:"I would tighten up some of the definition to make it clear that wars against terrorist organisations and drug cartels are permitted but, other than that, full support."

The proposal now exempts domestic military actions, as well as military actions taken where the state consents to the intervention.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

We are in full support of this. Peace is the primary objective that we uphold. Do we still get to keep our troops, though? We don't openly invade others, but surely we need it for defense. You'll never know who wants to invade us, or plan a coup.

- Chief Senator Shannon Gwendolyn Annette Tammie Elizabeth Jennifier Wanda

OOC: I can comment as a non-WA nation, right? Because my WA puppet is Victoriaans Nederlands, but that is technically under Valentine Z.

"This criminalizes war, Wars start by one nation suddenly attacking another".

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:"This criminalizes war, Wars start by one nation suddenly attacking another".

OOC: It may already be in certain cases, not sure.
“It criminalizes some wars. What is your problem with that? If you have a problem, we will use your beliefs to justify invasion.”

Teran Saber: "Would a military response to a World Assembly proposal or resolution that threatens the existence, economy or general welfare of one or more member states be considered self-defense under this proposal? There have been quite a few proposals that have popped up that have been potentially detrimental to some nations, and in a large percentage of these cases their authors were unwilling to address the concerns of the affected nations, or worse, would respond with hostility."

Valentine Z wrote:OOC: I can comment as a non-WA nation, right? Because my WA puppet is Victoriaans Nederlands, but that is technically under Valentine Z.

OOC: Yes, look at Kenmoria, they have a puppet that's in the WA, yet they're using their main nation to debate.

Fauxia wrote:

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:"This criminalizes war, Wars start by one nation suddenly attacking another".

OOC: It may already be in certain cases, not sure.
“It criminalizes some wars. What is your problem with that? If you have a problem, we will use your beliefs to justify invasion.”

You may wish to retract this threat, Ambassador. Our opinion is much the same, and if you wish to use that as a pretext for invasion, to invade those whose opinion in the WA differs from yours, ... well, the results may be a bit disastrous for you.

The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:Teran Saber: "Would a military response to a World Assembly proposal or resolution that threatens the existence, economy or general welfare of one or more member states be considered self-defense under this proposal? There have been quite a few proposals that have popped up that have been potentially detrimental to some nations, and in a large percentage of these cases their authors were unwilling to address the concerns of the affected nations, or worse, would respond with hostility."

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

Auralia wrote:

The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:Teran Saber: "Would a military response to a World Assembly proposal or resolution that threatens the existence, economy or general welfare of one or more member states be considered self-defense under this proposal? There have been quite a few proposals that have popped up that have been potentially detrimental to some nations, and in a large percentage of these cases their authors were unwilling to address the concerns of the affected nations, or worse, would respond with hostility."

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."

Grays Harbor wrote:

Fauxia wrote: OOC: It may already be in certain cases, not sure.
“It criminalizes some wars. What is your problem with that? If you have a problem, we will use your beliefs to justify invasion.”

You may wish to retract this threat, Ambassador. Our opinion is much the same, and if you wish to use that as a pretext for invasion, to invade those whose opinion in the WA differs from yours, ... well, the results may be a bit disastrous for you.

“Excuse the mis-speak. We did not mean it as a threat, only as a hypothetical. We are not imperialist, however, many nations are.”

I see no issues with the proposal as written, Ambassador. The Alliance fully supports.

Fauxia wrote:

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:"This criminalizes war, Wars start by one nation suddenly attacking another".

OOC: It may already be in certain cases, not sure.
“It criminalizes some wars. What is your problem with that? If you have a problem, we will use your beliefs to justify invasion.”

ooc: wars are never fair to either side, look at our IRL, for example Syria.

Xascaster Flisk: "The Environmental Drakeocracy of Skymoot fully supports this resolution. We eagerly await its arrival on the voting floor. Well done ambassador."

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:

Fauxia wrote: OOC: It may already be in certain cases, not sure.
“It criminalizes some wars. What is your problem with that? If you have a problem, we will use your beliefs to justify invasion.”

ooc: wars are never fair to either side, look at our IRL, for example Syria.

OOC: That isn't why international communities regulate war. It isn't a question of fairness, it's about reducing collateral damage and stabilizing relations.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:ooc: wars are never fair to either side, look at our IRL, for example Syria.

OOC: That isn't why international communities regulate war. It isn't a question of fairness, it's about reducing collateral damage and stabilizing relations.

They are doing a poor job in regulating war then.

Slavonia and Srijem wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: That isn't why international communities regulate war. It isn't a question of fairness, it's about reducing collateral damage and stabilizing relations.

They are doing a poor job in regulating war then.

OOC: Mostly because they aren't regulating war itself.