[DRAFT]Limitiations On Conscription

[Fauxia]

So this is the thing here- this is not an outright ban of conscription. Is there any precedent on the matter that “if it says you can’t ban it, you can’t restrict it?” If there is not, is the issue with the “age of majority” line?

Imagine a Venn diagram with two circles. One circle is the jurisdiction of member states, the other circle is the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and the area where the circles intersect is where member states and the World Assembly have concurrent jurisdiction. In my view, the "may compel" clause of Resolution 132, in conjunction with the non-discrimination provision of Resolution 35, places non-combat military conscription and non-military conscription in the first circle, beyond the reach of the World Assembly.

I get that. However, I do ‘t agree necessarily. It says that member states “may compell” so it reserves the rights, but it doesn’t necessarily prevent certain restrictions, in my view.

[Christian Democrats]

Imagine a Venn diagram with two circles. One circle is the jurisdiction of member states, the other circle is the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and the area where the circles intersect is where member states and the World Assembly have concurrent jurisdiction. In my view, the "may compel" clause of Resolution 132, in conjunction with the non-discrimination provision of Resolution 35, places non-combat military conscription and non-military conscription in the first circle, beyond the reach of the World Assembly.

I get that. However, I do ‘t agree necessarily. It says that member states “may compell” so it reserves the rights, but it doesn’t necessarily prevent certain restrictions, in my view.

Restrictions would certainly abridge the powers, or "rights" as you call them, reserved to member states.

If GenSec were to adopt your view and allow "certain restrictions" on reserved powers, where would you draw the line? What kinds of restrictions on reserved powers would be permitted, and what kinds of restrictions on reserved powers would be prohibited?

[Fauxia]

I get that. However, I do ‘t agree necessarily. It says that member states “may compell” so it reserves the rights, but it doesn’t necessarily prevent certain restrictions, in my view.

Restrictions would certainly abridge the powers, or "rights" as you call them, reserved to member states.

If GenSec were to adopt your view and allow "certain restrictions" on reserved powers, where would you draw the line? What kinds of restrictions on reserved powers would be permitted, and what kinds of restrictions on reserved powers would be prohibited?

Alright, I get that. As that probably removes a large portion of the proposal, I don’t know whether I will continue this

[Christian Democrats]

Restrictions would certainly abridge the powers, or "rights" as you call them, reserved to member states.

If GenSec were to adopt your view and allow "certain restrictions" on reserved powers, where would you draw the line? What kinds of restrictions on reserved powers would be permitted, and what kinds of restrictions on reserved powers would be prohibited?

Alright, I get that. As that probably removes a large portion of the proposal, I don’t know whether I will continue this

Surely, from your standpoint, there would be some value in limiting conscription into combat roles. Combat roles are only 20% of roles within the armed forces, but they are the most dangerous roles and the roles to which people most often object.

[Fauxia]

"New draft out, with the necessary changes, although I, personally, do not very much like all of the wording, to be quite frank."

[Christian Democrats]

"New draft out, with the necessary changes, although I, personally, do not very much like all of the wording, to be quite frank."

A less wordy alternative: redefine conscription so that it encompasses only combat roles for the purposes of your proposal.

[Fauxia]

"New draft out, with the necessary changes, although I, personally, do not very much like all of the wording, to be quite frank."

A less wordy alternative: redefine conscription so that it encompasses only combat roles for the purposes of your proposal.

I originally wanted to do that, but it didn't work out in the first reading.

[Attempted Socialism]

So this is the thing here- this is not an outright ban of conscription. Is there any precedent on the matter that “if it says you can’t ban it, you can’t restrict it?” If there is not, is the issue with the “age of majority” line?

Imagine a Venn diagram with two circles. One circle is the jurisdiction of member states, the other circle is the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and the area where the circles intersect is where member states and the World Assembly have concurrent jurisdiction. In my view, the "may compel" clause of Resolution 132, in conjunction with the non-discrimination provision of Resolution 35, places non-combat military conscription and non-military conscription in the first circle, beyond the reach of the World Assembly.

OOC: Sorry about the dead horse, but I can't see how these are at odds.
You may compel conscientious objectors, so due to non-discrimination you may not do a blanket ban, but there's no reason to say that you can limit time spent, or require pay, or the like. Your Venn diagram only places the ability to completely ban conscription beyond the reach of the WA; the WA can set other limitations or requirements that does not discriminate or remove a nations' ability to compel CO into non-combat conscription.
By analogy: A WA resolution gives states the right to have a public transport system and charge money for it. A later resolution requires that public transport system to be safe and affordable. Expanding on requirements within the confines of the rules like that is not against the rules (In my analogy, it would be illegal to order states to lower costs to 0).
I can't see how limiting conscription to a maximum amount of time removes a nations ability to compel CO into non-combat conscription.

[Bears Armed]

"New draft out, with the necessary changes, although I, personally, do not very much like all of the wording, to be quite frank."

OOC
Note that the views on legality that Christian Democrats is expressing here are their opinion, and have been accepted [after some discussion] by Sierra Lyricalia, but have not been agreed by GenSec as a whole.
I still interpret the Military Freedom Act as regulating the employment of conscientious objectors only if one practices conscription, and so as leaving open both the possibility of a total ban on conscription and the possibility of a total requirement for conscription.
What the remaining three GenSec members think on the subject has yet to be revealed.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Without getting into proposal legality, I thought I'd give a RL example; Finland has universal conscription of all young men, and if you don't want to do army, you need to do what's called "civil service", which basically means you'll do something that's considered useful to the society, but which doesn't need extensive education on the subject beforehand. (You'll get job-specific training of course.)

If you flat out refuse, you'll "serve" your time in prison.

(Finland keeps getting lower human rights scores from the RL international evaluators because of that last bit (and a few unrelated ones), but that hasn't done much to make people less happy about how the system now works.)

[Fauxia]

"New draft out, with the necessary changes, although I, personally, do not very much like all of the wording, to be quite frank."

OOC
Note that the views on legality that Christian Democrats is expressing here are their opinion, and have been accepted [after some discussion] by Sierra Lyricalia, but have not been agreed by GenSec as a whole.
I still interpret the Military Freedom Act as regulating the employment of conscientious objectors only if one practices conscription, and so as leaving open both the possibility of a total ban on conscription and the possibility of a total requirement for conscription.
What the remaining three GenSec members think on the subject has yet to be revealed.

OOC: If only the extremes are allowed, that doesn’t help me.

[Feztobania]

The Delegation of Feztobania is in favour of the proposed Draft, with the exception of Point #6.

It has come to the attention of the Federal government that this draft wishes to eradicate forced conscription as a form of punishment. For over 2 decades, Feztobania has not held the burden of hosting prisons in its territory, and other means have been used as 'punishment' and rehabilitation.

Military conscription has always been part of the Federation's policies, primarily due to honour, culture and tradition, and historically due to the Feztoban Civil Wars of the past. Since the eradication of prisons within the nation, however, conscription has also been a form of rehabilitation for the country's lower-level criminals as deemed by the High Courts of the Internal Govt.

The World Assembly has no authority within internal matters, and thus, this delegation wishes to express its rejection of the potential bill-to-pass unless point 6 is withdrawn.

Additionally, Feztobania is ready to not be in comformity with said draft and is prepared to deal with sanctions, as this method has proven to increase the wellbeing and professional life prospectus of criminals serving in the military.

However, in hindsight, Feztobania's conscription, which lasts 18 months, may be reduced to 12 months as stated in the draft only if point 6 is, once again, withdrawn

Signed; Rafael Jarrighondo
Feztobanian Delegate to the WA

[Fauxia]

The Delegation of Feztobania is in favour of the proposed Draft, with the exception of Point #6.

It has come to the attention of the Federal government that this draft wishes to eradicate forced conscription as a form of punishment. For over 2 decades, Feztobania has not held the burden of hosting prisons in its territory, and other means have been used as 'punishment' and rehabilitation.

Military conscription has always been part of the Federation's policies, primarily due to honour, culture and tradition, and historically due to the Feztoban Civil Wars of the past. Since the eradication of prisons within the nation, however, conscription has also been a form of rehabilitation for the country's lower-level criminals as deemed by the High Courts of the Internal Govt.

The World Assembly has no authority within internal matters, and thus, this delegation wishes to express its rejection of the potential bill-to-pass unless point 6 is withdrawn.

Additionally, Feztobania is ready to not be in comformity with said draft and is prepared to deal with sanctions, as this method has proven to increase the wellbeing and professional life prospectus of criminals serving in the military.

However, in hindsight, Feztobania's conscription, which lasts 18 months, may be reduced to 12 months as stated in the draft only if point 6 is, once again, withdrawn

Signed; Rafael Jarrighondo
Feztobanian Delegate to the WA

“Do you mean point seven, ambassador? For the record, none of this applies to non-combat roles. You may still conscript your criminals for the civil service.”

[Feztobania]

“Do you mean point seven, ambassador? For the record, none of this applies to non-combat roles. You may still conscript your criminals for the civil service.”

"I stand corrected, point 7 is the one we were wishing to address, and one we continue to be against. We are aware that non-combat roles are not applicable, but criminal charges deemed guilty by the courts leading to punishment by conscription in the Federation are, in their majority, combat-related roles.

Criminal Conscripts within the Feztobanian military are the first ones to be deployed on any battlefield where our nation may partake in combat. They are, however, dully trained and treated as all other conscripts within the military, with the exception of being on the first battlelines.

The Federation continues, thus, vehemently defending internal affairs of a nation as non-abided by WA resolutions, unless these internal issues are undemocratic and hostile,in which case other methods such as suspension and sanctions must be implemented. However, this is not the case for us, and administrating our own armed forces and penal system is not the concern of an external governing body.

Signed:
Rafael Jaarrighondo
Feztobanian Delegate to the WA

[Fauxia]

“Do you mean point seven, ambassador? For the record, none of this applies to non-combat roles. You may still conscript your criminals for the civil service.”

"I stand corrected, point 7 is the one we were wishing to address, and one we continue to be against. We are aware that non-combat roles are not applicable, but criminal charges deemed guilty by the courts leading to punishment by conscription in the Federation are, in their majority, combat-related roles.

Criminal Conscripts within the Feztobanian military are the first ones to be deployed on any battlefield where our nation may partake in combat. They are, however, dully trained and treated as all other conscripts within the military, with the exception of being on the first battlelines.

The Federation continues, thus, vehemently defending internal affairs of a nation as non-abided by WA resolutions, unless these internal issues are undemocratic and hostile,in which case other methods such as suspension and sanctions must be implemented. However, this is not the case for us, and administrating our own armed forces and penal system is not the concern of an external governing body.

Signed:
Rafael Jaarrighondo
Feztobanian Delegate to the WA

“Ambassador, would you accept a compromise that outlaws such conscription for minor crimes only?”

[Aureumterra]

“This is does not take into consideration the nations with a low population, that need such conscription in combat roles to sustain them, therefore, I shall vote against it.”

[Separatist Peoples]

“This is does not take into consideration the nations with a low population, that need such conscription in combat roles to sustain them, therefore, I shall vote against it.”

"Frankly, ambassador, if your population is low enough that you need conscripts to fill combat roles to survive, then your nation should reconsider it's foreign policy."

[Aureumterra]

“This is does not take into consideration the nations with a low population, that need such conscription in combat roles to sustain them, therefore, I shall vote against it.”

“Frankly, ambassador, if your population is low enough that you need conscripts to fill combat roles to survive, then your nation should reconsider it's foreign policy."

“That is their nation’s problem. Our nation does not need conscription into combat, but rather other military missions.”

[Fauxia]

“Frankly, ambassador, if your population is low enough that you need conscripts to fill combat roles to survive, then your nation should reconsider it's foreign policy."

“That is their nation’s problem. Our nation does not need conscription into combat, but rather other military missions.”

"This doesn’t illegalize conscription. I suggest you provide incentives to join the armed forces. Abusing human rights doesn’t cut it.”

[Feztobania]

“Ambassador, would you accept a compromise that outlaws such conscription for minor crimes only?”

"We would be willing to compromise, as long as minor crimes are defined, not by the WA body, but by the internal courts of a nation."

Signed,
Rafael Jaarrighondo
Delegate of Feztobania to the WA

[Fauxia]

“Ambassador, would you accept a compromise that outlaws such conscription for minor crimes only?”

"We would be willing to compromise, as long as minor crimes are defined, not by the WA body, but by the internal courts of a nation."

Signed,
Rafael Jaarrighondo
Delegate of Feztobania to the WA

“That’s a bit difficult, with Crime and Punishment in place.”

[Kanugues Wed]

"Kanugues Wed believes that limitations on military conscription are necessary to safeguard human rights, however we are troubled by the limitation of a single year of conscription in peacetime. Conscription of persons into combat roles in peacetime should not be limited for conscripts are unlikely to engage in combat, rather they will simply prepare for it. During wartime, conscription should not be limited beyond the current extent to ensure states are able to keep their independence. As Kanugues Wed has mandatory military service, sometimes involving combat roles, we require that conscripts must at least be allowed to stay in combat roles for longer than a year if they wish too, although we hope to remove this point entirely."

[Fauxia]

"Kanugues Wed believes that limitations on military conscription are necessary to safeguard human rights, however we are troubled by the limitation of a single year of conscription in peacetime. Conscription of persons into combat roles in peacetime should not be limited for conscripts are unlikely to engage in combat, rather they will simply prepare for it. During wartime, conscription should not be limited beyond the current extent to ensure states are able to keep their independence. As Kanugues Wed has mandatory military service, sometimes involving combat roles, we require that conscripts must at least be allowed to stay in combat roles for longer than a year if they wish too, although we hope to remove this point entirely."

“If you cannot successfully train the people you forced into service in one year, you either need to figure out a way to retain conscripts out of their own free choice, or else get some more effective teachers.”

[Feztobania]

“That’s a bit difficult, with Crime and Punishment in place.”

"Crime and Punishment? Excuse me but I do not follow. What do you mean Crime and Punishment?

[Araraukar]

“That’s a bit difficult, with Crime and Punishment in place.”

"Crime and Punishment? Excuse me but I do not follow. What do you mean Crime and Punishment?

"They're referring to a resolution by that name," Johan said. "There is a nice archive of them on the premises, with an easy-to-search filing system."