Take One wrote:Hello,
People's Republic of Take One is a newly-formed nation and we recently became a member state of General Assembly, so please accept our regret for late deliberation of this proposal since it has already entered voting. We found some concerns with the resolution, but are not sure of their weight and do not want to hold up crucial resolution on technicalities. Nevertheless, in the interest of due diligence, we seek input from other member states on whether these are worthy of a revision at this late stage.
"You missed your opportunity for revisions by a week, ambassador."
3.c.iii. The service does not, in character or purpose, further military efforts; and
This appears to be in contradiction of 3.e and 3.f which appear to permit recruitment of volunteers into military service, and utilization of captured infrastructure for military efforts. If we surmise from 3.f that military occupation following armed conflict could potentially run into any recurrent instances of armed conflict in its attempt to pacify the region, then military service would require military efforts outside of administration and policing, and at that time, it shall be challenging for a military occupancy to not engage its military service volunteers in active military efforts.
"3.c. is a separate clause not governed directly by 3.e or 3.f."3.d.ii. Do not further military efforts.
The same argument holds for this clause as well, the object of concern being commodity resources instead of volunteer recruits.
"3.d is a different clause than 3.c, and does not govern 3.c."4.d. Restore and enforce public order and safety while respecting the laws of occupied land, to the extent that it does not frustrate World Assembly law.This provision should also allow provisions for respecting the laws of occupied land, to the extent that it does not frustrate the laws of the occupying territory either. For eg -- a fair number of nations have laws more conservative or restrictive of individual freedom than do the majority members of World Assembly Law. The laws of such occupied nations could curtail the freedom of occupying military forces afforded to them in their own nation on home territory.
"Yes, unless those laws limit the efficacy of the occupation. Occupying forces, within reason, of course, are and should be subject to the local laws when they are off-duty. Life is hard when you're a soldier. I'm not looking to make it easier, just more fair."4.e. Narrowly tailor any restriction of individual freedoms;
This statement could also use qualifications to ensure that these freedoms should not impinge upon civic rights and liberties of other individuals. The laws an occupied territory arrives at upon attaining self-sufficiency of administration are it's own (and perhaps qualified by World Assembly Law), but until such time, occupying forces should be allowed to curtail inappropriate reaches of individual freedom that their own law might forbid.
"The entire point of military occupation is necessity. Some degree of temporary limitations are necessary to manage the territory during a transitory period. This is true of other emergency or transitory periods. That it violates individual freedom is a sad requirement, yes, but occasionally necessary. The most ready example I have is instituting a curfew on an occupied territory to avoid sabotage. A burden on populations? Yes. Necessary in the short term? Yes. Likely to persist beyond the occupation? No."
