[PASSED] Provisional Rule in Wartime

[Separatist Peoples]

"I tried this before, and it wasn't smooth. Lets try again."

Provisional Rule in Wartime
International Security | Significant

---

Believing this Assembly’s past efforts to reduce unnecessary hardship and harm in military engagements are integral to maintaining the Assembly’s humanitarian mission;

Accepting that military occupation of civilian territory is often necessary to pacify the region following armed conflict;

Justly affirming that nations can balance effectively administering captured territory and the proper stewardship and protection of the inhabitants;

Outraged by military forces that treat occupied territory and peoples as an opportunity for plunder rather than hold the territory and its resources in trust for the territory’s inhabitants; and

Rejecting military success and profiteering as the ultimate goals of an occupation;

The World Assembly establishes the following:

1. A ‘military occupation’ is the effective and provisional control and administration of a territory by a military power not sovereign to the territory that it controls.
   
   
2. 'Military efforts’ are those actions or goals, exclusive of administration or policing, taken by military forces to coordinate operational or strategic advantages in armed conflict.
   
   
3. Member state occupying forces may:
   
   
   1. Create and enforce regulations to establish effective control over the occupied territory, provided they do not violate or frustrate extant World Assembly law;
      
      
   2. Levy reasonable, non-punitive taxes to defray the non-military costs of territory administration, except that such taxes may not fund compensation for occupying forces;
      
      
   3. Compel limited emergency civilian service, provided:
      
      
      1. All compelled workers are over the occupied territory’s age of majority;
         
         
      2. Occupying forces limit service to those efforts necessary to restore or improve the quality of life for civilians in the occupied territory;
         
         
      3. The service does not, in character or purpose, further military efforts; and
         
         
      4. The service accords with extant World Assembly labor law and pays a fair wage for the services rendered.
   4. Utilize natural and community resources to the benefit of the occupied territory, provided those resources:
      
      
      1. Are not appropriated for domestic use by the occupying force; and
         
         
      2. Do not further military efforts.
   5. Recruit volunteers for military service from within the occupied territory; and
      
      
   6. Employ captured public infrastructure, such as communication systems, roads, docks, or power grids, in occupied territories for military efforts.
4. Member state occupying forces must:
   
   
   1. Immediately confer upon occupied civilian populations of nonmember states the same rights and protections of extant World Assembly law applicable to non-citizen inhabitants of the occupying nation;
      
      
   2. Establish or restore an impartial adjudicative authority to resolve civil and criminal disputes within the occupied territory;
      
      
   3. Establish or restore essential civilian infrastructure in a timely and effective manner;
      
      
   4. Restore and enforce public order and safety while respecting the laws of the occupied land, to the extent that it does not frustrate World Assembly law.
      
      
   5. Narrowly tailor any restriction of individual freedoms; and
      
      
   6. Peacefully transition territorial authority to a sovereign government at the conclusion of hostilities or at such time as a durable and stable peace is forged.
5. The International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee will:
   
   
   1. Liaise with both military and civilian authorities within an occupied territory;
   2. Independently inspect occupying operations;
      
      
   3. Provide guidance, technical expertise, and aid for occupied civilian populations; and
      
      
   4. Report violations directly to the World Assembly Compliance Commission.
6. Member states must consider any serious or systematic breach of § 4, either intentionally, through gross negligence, or nonfeasance, a war crime and prosecute violators accordingly.
   
   
7. Member states need not treat isolated and de minimis violations as war crimes, provided they are reasonably redressed and do not continue.
   
   
8. Detonates all nuclear warheads simultaneously.

OOC: In the interest of streamlining debate, I’m trying something new. Often, people dissect proposals line by line. This approach is very useful when finding problems with the regulation, but sometimes makes arguing the underlying policy difficult. So, I’ve decided to separate the two for the purposes of debate. I’ve spoilered a short list of policies implicit in this draft. They are the general goals that the text of my proposal seeks to execute.

If you’ve an issue with the central ideas behind the proposal, refer to the policies. If you’ve an issue with the regulation, refer to the proposal. If you believe that the proposal doesn’t accomplish the policy goal, refer to both of them.

1. Occupations are inherently temporary, and are intended to eventually yield control to a sovereign government. They are distinct from both nominal military control of a battlefield and permanent annexation of a territory.
   
2. Entities that assume occupational control of a territory also assume responsibility for the well-being of the inhabitants. Occupying forces should safeguard the inhabitants they now control.
   
3. Occupations exist to pacify a territory, not to plunder it. Occupying forces should hold the occupied territory in trust for the occupied population.
   
4. A nonmember territory occupied by a member state force is subject to limited WA protection by virtue of the obligations placed on the member state force. Thus, the occupying force should extend similar international protections to occupied populations as granted to non-citizen individuals in their own territory. However, since this extension is implied and not explicit, occupying forces may balance those rights against the necessities of an occupation.
   
5. Occupied inhabitants are not civilian internees under WA law, and are subject to different protections or treatment.

[United Massachusetts]

Occupations are inherently temporary, and are intended to eventually return control to a sovereign government. They are distinct from both nominal military control of a battlefield and permanent annexation of a territory.

"We contend that there exist times where this is inpractical and undesirable. For instance, what to make of a situation where the occupiers are welcomed and the majority of citizens within the region desire to be a part of the occupier nation. For instance, if UM went to war with and conquered part of Connecticut whose residents were Bay Staters by identity being ethnically cleansed by the vicious New Yorker majority, why would we expend our resources to create a ridiculously small, unwanted nation spanning half of Connecticut? It would seem better to just annex that part of Connecticut to UM proper."

Levy non-punitive taxes to defray the non-military costs of territory administration, except that such taxes may not fund compensation for occupying forces;

"Does this apply squarely to the occupied territory in question? So, for instance, revenues made from our taxes on half of Connecticut could only fund that half of Connecticut?"

All laborers are over the occupied territory’s age of majority;

"Isn't this implied in 'Restrictions on Child Labor'? Furthermore, is the age of majority applicable to territory the one imposed by the previous sovereign government or that of the conqueror? Because Connecticut laws regarding age of majority cease to be "the occupied territory's age of majority" when we occupy it."

[Separatist Peoples]

Occupations are inherently temporary, and are intended to eventually return control to a sovereign government. They are distinct from both nominal military control of a battlefield and permanent annexation of a territory.

"We contend that there exist times where this is inpractical and undesirable. For instance, what to make of a situation where the occupiers are welcomed and the majority of citizens within the region desire to be a part of the occupier nation. For instance, if UM went to war with and conquered part of Connecticut whose residents were Bay Staters by identity being ethnically cleansed by the vicious New Yorker majority, why would we expend our resources to create a ridiculously small, unwanted nation spanning half of Connecticut? It would seem better to just annex that part of Connecticut to UM proper."

"You could always annex it or turn full control to a sovereign government controlled entirely by the occupied territory. The phrase is not exclusive of a system different from the preceding one. You simply should not extend a military occupation indefinitely."

"Does this apply squarely to the occupied territory in question? So, for instance, revenues made from our taxes on half of Connecticut could only fund that half of Connecticut?"

"I'm going to say provisionally, yes. If you've occupied only half of Connecticut, the tax revenue couldn't fund Massachusetts or New York administration. Its part of the concept of holding the resources in trust."

[United Massachusetts]

"We contend that there exist times where this is inpractical and undesirable. For instance, what to make of a situation where the occupiers are welcomed and the majority of citizens within the region desire to be a part of the occupier nation. For instance, if UM went to war with and conquered part of Connecticut whose residents were Bay Staters by identity being ethnically cleansed by the vicious New Yorker majority, why would we expend our resources to create a ridiculously small, unwanted nation spanning half of Connecticut? It would seem better to just annex that part of Connecticut to UM proper."

"You could always annex it or turn full control to a sovereign government controlled entirely by the occupied territory. The phrase is not exclusive of a system different from the preceding one. You simply should not extend a military occupation indefinitely."

"I see, and the text makes that clear. Unfortunately, the policy goal description does not. To eliminate confusion, I suggest you change the word 'return' in the polciy summary."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Provisionally, this will receive my support. I haven't actually read it, but I'm pretty confident from Sep's track record alone that it'll be more than acceptable.

[Kenmoria]

"How does this proposal “improve world security by boosting police and military budgets”, and thus justify the category? Also, even though there is a value to humour, clause 8 is just ridiculous."

[Separatist Peoples]

"How does this proposal “improve world security by boosting police and military budgets”, and thus justify the category? Also, even though there is a value to humour, clause 8 is just ridiculous."

"It imposes additional operating costs on military entities engaged in occupations. It firmly moves the role of soldiers in an occupation into one akin to police officers. It requires enforcement of law in an occupied territory. It requires occupying forces create a legal system to deal with said law enforcement. It increases the cost of military operations by imposing additional operational considerations. Need I go on?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Believing this Assembly’s past efforts to reduce unnecessary hardship and harm in military engagements are integral to maintaining the Assembly’s humanitarian mission;

Accepting that military occupation of civilian territory is often necessary to pacify the region following armed conflict; I think something along the lines of 'effectively defend national interests'. But this is certainly acceptable.

Justly affirming that nations can balance effectively administering captured territory and the proper stewardship and protection of the inhabitants;

Outraged by military forces that treat occupied territory and peoples as an opportunity for plunder rather than hold the territory and its resources in trust for the territory’s inhabitants; and

Rejecting military success and profiteering as the penultimate goals of an occupation;

The World Assembly establishes the following:

1. A "Military occupation" is the effective and provisional control and administration of a territory by a military power not sovereign to the territory that it controls.
   
   
2. "Military efforts" are those actions or goals, exclusive of administration or policing, taken by military forces to coordinate operational or strategic advantages in armed conflict.
   
   
3. Member states may engage in military occupations subject to these powers and duties.
   
   
4. Occupying forces may:
   
   
   1. Create and enforce regulations to establish effective control over the occupied territory, provided they do not violate or frustrate extant World Assembly law;
      
   2. Levy non-punitive taxes to defray the non-military costs of territory administration, except that such taxes may not fund compensation for occupying forces; Such taxes would substitute, however, for funds that could be used for occupying forces.
      
   3. Compel limited emergency civilian service, provided:
      
      
      1. All laborers are over the occupied territory’s age of majority;
         
      2. Occupying forces limit such service to efforts necessary to restore or improve the quality of life for civilians in the occupied territory;
         
      3. The service does not, in character or purpose, further military efforts; and How about building or repairing infrastructure which both furthers quality of life and military logistics?
         
      4. The service accords with extant World Assembly labor law.
   4. Utilize natural and community resources to the benefit of the occupied territory, provided those resources:
      
      
      1. Are not appropriated for domestic use by the occupying force; and
         
      2. Do not fuel military efforts.
   5. Recruit volunteers for military service from within the occupied territory; and
      
   6. Employ captured public infrastructure, such as communication systems, roads, docks, or power grids, in occupied territories for military efforts. So they can use it, they just can't get civilians to repair it?
5. Occupying forces must:
   
   
   1. Immediately confer upon occupied civilian populations of nonmember states the same rights and protections of extant World Assembly law applicable to non-citizen inhabitants of the occupying nation, provided it does not frustrate the goals of the occupation itself; To be honest (though it may be fatigue of some sort), I don't know what you mean to permit by the exception about frustrating the goals of occupation.
      
   2. Establish or restore an impartial adjudicative authority to resolve civil and criminal disputes within the occupied territory;
      
   3. Establish or restore essential civilian infrastructure in a timely and effective manner;
      
   4. Restore and enforce public order and safety while respecting the laws of the occupied land, to the extent that it does not frustrate:
      
      
      1. the goals of public order and safety;
         
      2. the success of the occupation; or
         
      3. World Assembly law.
   5. Narrowly tailor any restriction of individual freedoms to minimize the loss of rights; and
      
   6. Peacefully transition authority over the territory to a sovereign government at the conclusion of hostilities or at such time as a durable and stable peace is forged.
6. The International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee will:
   
   
   1. Liaise with both military and civilian authorities within an occupied territory;
      
   2. Independently inspect such operations; and
      
   3. Provide guidance, technical expertise, and aid for occupied civilian populations.
7. Member states must consider any serious or systematic breach of § section 5, either intentionally or through gross negligence or inaction, a war crime and prosecute violators accordingly. However, member states need not treat isolated and de minimis violations as war crimes. I would fold the 'however' sentence into the previous sentence.
   
   
8. Detonates all nuclear warheads simultaneously. Uh huh.

[Separatist Peoples]

[*]Levy non-punitive taxes to defray the non-military costs of territory administration, except that such taxes may not fund compensation for occupying forces; Such taxes would substitute, however, for funds that could be used for occupying forces.

"Yes. That is one of the compromises involved."

The service does not, in character or purpose, further military efforts; and How about building or repairing infrastructure which both furthers quality of life and military logistics?

"I would err on the side of not permitting civilian labor for that use. I would not want to see nations use something of limited benefit to civilians but great military benefit as justification to compel labor."

[*]Employ captured public infrastructure, such as communication systems, roads, docks, or power grids, in occupied territories for military efforts. So they can use it, they just can't get civilians to repair it?[/list]

"Yes. I suspect that a military force is in a better position to repair most of those things in most post-conflict areas than the civilian population."

Immediately confer upon occupied civilian populations of nonmember states the same rights and protections of extant World Assembly law applicable to non-citizen inhabitants of the occupying nation, provided it does not frustrate the goals of the occupation itself; To be honest (though it may be fatigue of some sort), I don't know what you mean to permit by the exception about frustrating the goals of occupation.

"You needn't give occupied populations rights if they are inimical to the point of the occupation. So, one could use this to justify not permitting occupied peoples to drive private tanks around town if a WA law were to permit it, as it would likely frustrate the point of the occupation."

[*]Member states must consider any serious or systematic breach of § section 5, either intentionally or through gross negligence or inaction, a war crime and prosecute violators accordingly. However, member states need not treat isolated and de minimis violations as war crimes. I would fold the 'however' sentence into the previous sentence.

"How would you suggest I phrase this?"

Detonates all nuclear warheads simultaneously. Uh huh.[/list][/box]

"You know you want to watch."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It is good to know one has achieved perfection in the first attempt."

[Araraukar]

"It is good to know one has achieved perfection in the first attempt."

OOC: I see a few issues that at least need clarification if not edits, but operating on 5 hours of sleep in the last 65 makes my brain not very cooperative on complex matters right now. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: So...perfection?

[Kenmoria]

“There needs to be a line break between clauses 7 and 8, the latter of which is still absurd.”

[Separatist Peoples]

“There needs to be a line break between clauses 7 and 8, the latter of which is still absurd.”

"You say absurd as if it's a bad thing."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Any other feedback?"

[The New California Republic]

OOC: It isn't perfect until clause 8 disappears.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: It isn't perfect until clause 8 disappears.

"Get used to radioactive wastelands, ambassador!"

[Kenmoria]

“There needs to be a line break between clauses 7 and 8, the latter of which is still absurd.”

"You say absurd as if it's a bad thing."

“It is a bad thing. I am all for a bit of humour, but not when said joke comes at the expense of common sense and forces every member state to engage in noncompliance or be destroyed. Ideally, any joke of this nature should come in the preamble, where it doesn’t have an actual effect.”

[The New California Republic]

OOC: It isn't perfect until clause 8 disappears.

"Get used to radioactive wastelands, ambassador!"

"But Ambassador, our citizens go on vacation to other WA nations to get away from radioactive wasteland..."

[New Min]

"Full support if clause 8 is removed in its entirety."

[Wallenburg]

Utilize natural and community resources to the benefit of the occupied territory, provided those resources:

1. Are not appropriated for domestic use by the occupying force; and
   
2. Do not fuel military efforts.

"We cannot support this. Certain industrial assets, such as munitions and vehicle factories, may be necessary to continue fueling an ongoing war effort. Assets such as plantations and farms providing surplus food, cloth, and other essentials may be necessary to offset the shortages imposed by war."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Haha, I don't believe that clause 8 is a problem. If we vote on this, that gives everyone at a minimum, like 5 days to move all the warheads to someplace safe where they can be disposed of.

[Separatist Peoples]

Utilize natural and community resources to the benefit of the occupied territory, provided those resources:

1. Are not appropriated for domestic use by the occupying force; and
   
2. Do not fuel military efforts.

"We cannot support this. Certain industrial assets, such as munitions and vehicle factories, may be necessary to continue fueling an ongoing war effort. Assets such as plantations and farms providing surplus food, cloth, and other essentials may be necessary to offset the shortages imposed by war."

"Then you need to annex the territory under this scheme. If you are the occupying force, you don't hold legal title to the land. You're a temporary administrator. Permitting nations to seize such resources is tantamount to dipping into a bank account as a bank teller. If you would take those resources as your own, you should confer similar benefits to those on the land as you would if you were taking your own resources.

"The ban on permitting those resources from fueling the war effort is simple: to disincentivize continued warfare, it should be illegal to shovel new territory into the engine of war just to propel the engine further. Otherwise, the inventive of additional resources is likely to cause more warfare. And the WA has taken a clear policy stance not to enable additional destruction where it can be avoided.

"So, you can freely contract for those goods at a fair market price, which avoids the question of appropriation, or you can make that territory part of Wallenberg, thus conferring the benefits of citizenship on the people. Raiding the bank account does not a custodianship make."

[Bears Armed]

(I'm commenting OOC here because the Bears don't really have enough experience of warfare against civilized opponents to have suitable precedents from their own history to use here and unfortunately, today, I don''t have enough time free to work out what RL-ish examples their diplomats would be able to cite instead.)

"The ban on permitting those resources from fueling the war effort is simple: to disincentivize continued warfare, it should be illegal to shovel new territory into the engine of war just to propel the engine further."

If those facilities were already providing those resources to the other side's military effort before you over-ran that area -- which seems fairly likely, given the impracticality of establishing new industries in freshly-occupied lands -- then you taking over the supply wouldn't be "shovelling new territory into the engine of war". Also, to me, there's a moral difference between "disincentiving" wars of conquest and making it harder for nations that are fighting back against such wars (presumably with success, as they're now occupying lands that were formerly held by the initial aggressors) to achieve victory.

"So, you can freely contract for those goods at a fair market price, which avoids the question of appropriation"

And what if the resources weren't being sold to the area's previous government (whether at "a fair market price", or otherwise), because those were actually government-controlled factories anyway?
'Nation A, partly using equipment produced in factory X, attacks nation B => Nation B fights back successfully, and actually manages to occupy the area [formerly held by Nation A] including factory X => Nation B has to pay the government of Nation A if it wants to use equipment from factory X in the completion of its fight against that aggressor' ?!?

[Separatist Peoples]

"The ban on permitting those resources from fueling the war effort is simple: to disincentivize continued warfare, it should be illegal to shovel new territory into the engine of war just to propel the engine further."

If those facilities were already providing those resources to the other side's military effort before you over-ran that area -- which seems fairly likely, given the impracticality of establishing new industries in freshly-occupied lands -- then you taking over the supply wouldn't be "shovelling new territory into the engine of war".

OOC: There is nothing here that prevents you from using those industries. You just have to use those existing infrastructures for the occupied territory's welfare.

Also, to me, there's a moral difference between "disincentiving" wars of conquest and making it harder for nations that are fighting back against such wars (presumably with success, as they're now occupying lands that were formerly held by the initial aggressors) to achieve victory.

once you're out of your own territory, it's no longer right to use civilian assets to fuel your warfighting. I am willing to qualify that captured military assets and resources are fair game, but since Wartime Looting and Pillage already makes that exception, I didn't think it was necessary. Still, nothing like clarity.

And what if the resources weren't being sold to the area's previous government (whether at "a fair market price", or otherwise), because those were actually government-controlled factories anyway?

Sucks for you? Public infrastructure can be seized and used for military ends, but community resources may not be. The answer would depend on the end use of the resources. Do they serve to feed the military of the home nation, or the civilians in the occupied area? Obviously I cannot predict every single possibility, so I deliberately left some ambiguity here.

'Nation A, partly using equipment produced in factory X, attacks nation B => Nation B fights back successfully, and actually manages to occupy the area [formerly held by Nation A] including factory X => Nation B has to pay the government of Nation A if it wants to use equipment from factory X in the completion of its fight against that aggressor' ?!?

Yep. Because Factory X was never owned by Nation B. You're justifying theft with emotional pleas.