NationStates

Fauxia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Resolution 132 protects the practice of conscripting conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties (about 80% of military roles). Together with Resolution 35, this exact same practice must be protected with regard to other individuals. Otherwise, there would be unlawful discrimination against conscientious objectors.

OOC: Is it possible I should open a challenge to see what the rest of GenSec says?

I suppose you could. In my view, a resolution against conscription could legislate, if at all, only on the matter of combat roles.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Fauxia wrote:OOC: Is it possible I should open a challenge to see what the rest of GenSec says?

I suppose you could. In my view, a resolution against conscription could legislate, if at all, only on the matter of combat roles.

OOC: I think I will, tomorrow. Thanks for the information, CD, even if I don’t like it.

Christian Democrats wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:I...really don't get this argument. Please could you elaborate?

Resolution 132 protects the practice of conscripting conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties (about 80% of military roles). Together with Resolution 35, this exact same practice must be protected with regard to other individuals. Otherwise, there would be unlawful discrimination against conscientious objectors.

Yes, but what about compelling practical purposes? What if a nation says 'There is a compelling practical purpose to conscripting conscientious objectors but not anyone else because conscription is a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription'? Unusual, yes, but it seems to me to hold up. If nations can claim 'compelling practical purpose', so too could the WA, presumably. The WA could therefore ban conscription provided that it argues 'compelling practical purpose' and that it includes 'subject to previous legislation'.

Alternatively, one could claim that the status of conscientious objection is not an arbitrary characteristic, though I'm not sure how it would be argued.

Fauxia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:I suppose you could. In my view, a resolution against conscription could legislate, if at all, only on the matter of combat roles.

OOC: I think I will, tomorrow. Thanks for the information, CD, even if I don’t like it.

Anytime.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Resolution 132 protects the practice of conscripting conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties (about 80% of military roles). Together with Resolution 35, this exact same practice must be protected with regard to other individuals. Otherwise, there would be unlawful discrimination against conscientious objectors.

Yes, but what about compelling practical purposes? What if a nation says 'There is a compelling practical purpose to conscripting conscientious objectors but not anyone else because conscription is a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription'? Unusual, yes, but it seems to me to hold up. If nations can claim 'compelling practical purpose', so too could the WA, presumably. The WA could therefore ban conscription provided that it argues 'compelling practical purpose' and that it includes 'subject to previous legislation'.

Alternatively, one could claim that the status of conscientious objection is not an arbitrary characteristic, though I'm not sure how it would be argued.

That doesn't make sense because "a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription" would also be illegal.

Christian Democrats wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Yes, but what about compelling practical purposes? What if a nation says 'There is a compelling practical purpose to conscripting conscientious objectors but not anyone else because conscription is a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription'? Unusual, yes, but it seems to me to hold up. If nations can claim 'compelling practical purpose', so too could the WA, presumably. The WA could therefore ban conscription provided that it argues 'compelling practical purpose' and that it includes 'subject to previous legislation'.

Alternatively, one could claim that the status of conscientious objection is not an arbitrary characteristic, though I'm not sure how it would be argued.

That doesn't make sense because "a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription" would also be illegal.

In what way?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:That doesn't make sense because "a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription" would also be illegal.

In what way?

Nations can't punish people for their beliefs.

Christian Democrats wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:In what way?

Nations can't punish people for their beliefs.

OOC: I believe the argument being made is that the belief isn't being punished, but the refusal to fight based on that belief. The mental state is effectively incidental.

Military Freedom Act, Article III, part 5 says that "This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service", so apparently the bit in III/2a about assigning objectors to non-combatant roles only applies while you have conscription and so a subsequent ban on conscription as a whole should be legal...

Bears Armed wrote:Military Freedom Act, Article III, part 5 says that "This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service", so apparently the bit in III/2a about assigning objectors to non-combatant roles only applies while you have conscription and so a subsequent ban on conscription as a whole should be legal...

This is how I read it as well.

Bears Armed wrote:Military Freedom Act, Article III, part 5 says that "This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service", so apparently the bit in III/2a about assigning objectors to non-combatant roles only applies while you have conscription and so a subsequent ban on conscription as a whole should be legal...

OOC: So you say it's legal?

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Military Freedom Act, Article III, part 5 says that "This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service", so apparently the bit in III/2a about assigning objectors to non-combatant roles only applies while you have conscription and so a subsequent ban on conscription as a whole should be legal...

This is how I read it as well.

That's not how I read that clause at all. There's a much simpler reading. The Military Freedom Act neither requires nations to use military conscription nor prohibits nations from using military conscription. The clause says nothing about the ability of the GA to legislate in the future.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This is how I read it as well.

That's not how I read that clause at all. There's a much simpler reading. The Military Freedom Act neither requires nations to use military conscription nor prohibits nations from using military conscription. The clause says nothing about the ability of the GA to legislate in the future.

OOC: I think it depends, and in this case, it's okay. Why besides my obvious bias? It's only a clarification clause, saying that it shall not be construed to do such a thing. It does not reserve the right of nations to choose their own conscriptions, it just doesn't do it itself, and it wants to clarify that. It's a courtesy clause.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This is how I read it as well.

That's not how I read that clause at all. There's a much simpler reading. The Military Freedom Act neither requires nations to use military conscription nor prohibits nations from using military conscription. The clause says nothing about the ability of the GA to legislate in the future.

Right. So how can that rule out a subsequent ban on conscription?

I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

OOC: He clearly thinks it does, as if it was a “reserves the rights” clause

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

Yes, but it seems that BA is saying that the clause protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription. It does not do that.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

Yes, but it seems that BA is saying that the clause protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription. It does not do that.

Does it outlaw it?

Christian Democrats wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

Yes, but it seems that BA is saying that the clause protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription. It does not do that.

Ah. I took it (both the text and BA's post) as meaning that subsequent action by the GA in either direction was being allowed for future resolutions, not necessarily a ban specifically. Cl. 5 protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription insofar as someone might otherwise interpret GAR #132 to mean that the GA was forbidden from subsequently outlawing conscription, but it doesn't protect that ability on an absolute basis (i.e. against future resolutions). We could still go the other direction and pass a resolution requiring a draft in all member states.

Carry on.

Fauxia wrote:Does it outlaw it?

As best as I can tell, everyone who is not CD thinks you can at least attempt it. I am unsure if one should read their comments as saying your specific proposal is fine. That said, I cannot see the problem that CD thinks to exist at all, and cannot come up with a single argument for his position that does not do horrific violence to my (admittedly limited) understanding of what the English words being used mean.
.

Fauxia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Yes, but it seems that BA is saying that the clause protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription. It does not do that.

Does it outlaw it?

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:

Fauxia wrote:Does it outlaw it?

As best as I can tell, everyone who is not CD thinks you can at least attempt it. I am unsure if one should read their comments as saying your specific proposal is fine. That said, I cannot see the problem that CD thinks to exist at all, and cannot come up with a single argument for his position that does not do horrific violence to my (admittedly limited) understanding of what the English words being used mean.

I feel like I'm repeating myself now. See Resolution 132, Article III, Section 2(a):


Any restrictions on conscription that apply to "non-combative military or non-military duties" are illegal.

Christian Democrats wrote:I feel like I'm repeating myself now. See Resolution 132, Article III, Section 2(a):

Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties.

Any restrictions on conscription that apply to "non-combative military or non-military duties" are illegal.

FWIW, while the author of GAR #132 clearly did not intend to block a future total ban on conscription, the law does in fact do what the law says, and I have to agree that that clause stands in the way of a total ban. Clause 5 is irrelevant, I now see, because 2a is neither a requirement nor a prohibition, but rather specifically permits nations to conscript CO's (and presumably by extension everybody else subject to the draft) into non-combat roles.

The most you could do without repealing #132 is to ban conscription into combat roles without regard to CO status.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:I feel like I'm repeating myself now. See Resolution 132, Article III, Section 2(a):

Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties.

Any restrictions on conscription that apply to "non-combative military or non-military duties" are illegal.

FWIW, while the author of GAR #132 clearly did not intend to block a future total ban on conscription, the law does in fact do what the law says, and I have to agree that that clause stands in the way of a total ban. Clause 5 is irrelevant, I now see, because 2a is neither a requirement nor a prohibition, but rather specifically permits nations to conscript CO's (and presumably by extension everybody else subject to the draft) into non-combat roles.

The most you could do without repealing #132 is to ban conscription into combat roles without regard to CO status.

Yes, the part in red is exactly my position.

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?

Fauxia wrote: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.