NATION

PASSWORD

[Perfect Draft] Provisional Rule in Wartime

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3100
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:38 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
'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.


OOC: This example (or rather your response to it) still seems a bit beyond the scope of what's reasonable during wartime. If the factory is government-owned in its initial state, then that counts as seizure of military assets for all intents and purposes. If it was privately owned, then I can see an argument for negotiating with the owner (or better, the workers who run it :p ) to either buy them out or buy their product. And if the occupying power is going to keep the factory running for its own efforts, those workers ought to be paid commensurately with the economics of the occupied territory. But requiring compensation between belligerents for the seizure of militarily relevant property or materiel during wartime is absurd.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Petty Officer, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:12 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Yep. Because Factory X was never owned by Nation B. You're justifying theft with emotional pleas.


OOC: This example (or rather your response to it) still seems a bit beyond the scope of what's reasonable during wartime. If the factory is government-owned in its initial state, then that counts as seizure of military assets for all intents and purposes. If it was privately owned, then I can see an argument for negotiating with the owner (or better, the workers who run it :p ) to either buy them out or buy their product. And if the occupying power is going to keep the factory running for its own efforts, those workers ought to be paid commensurately with the economics of the occupied territory. But requiring compensation between belligerents for the seizure of militarily relevant property or materiel during wartime is absurd.


Ooc: I addressed this earlier in the comment you quoted, actually.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:11 am

Quu'bump. That's Bigtopian for Bump.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8431
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:28 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:Quu'bump. That's Bigtopian for Bump.

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: Funny that, today is the same day that came up on my Bigtopian Word-a-day calendar.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19496
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:15 pm

"Might the authoring delegation clarify whether this proposal would respect battlefields and the contested territory they reside in as separate from occupied territory, and thereby respect member states' rights to seize material essential for immediate military operations, per the allowances provided in 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'?"
Last edited by Wallenburg on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8431
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:15 pm

Wallenburg wrote:"Might the authoring delegation clarify whether this proposal would respect battlefields and the contested territory they reside in as separate from occupied territory, and thereby respect member states' rights to seize material essential for immediate military operations, per the allowances provided in 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'?"

Do you mean abridge member states' rights to seize material... ?
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:47 pm

Wallenburg wrote:"Might the authoring delegation clarify whether this proposal would respect battlefields and the contested territory they reside in as separate from occupied territory, and thereby respect member states' rights to seize material essential for immediate military operations, per the allowances provided in 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'?"

"I have considered the battlefield and occupied territory to be separate jurisdictions. A battlefield is, by its nature, a contested territory. While military superiority may not be questionable, that there is combat itself suggests the land is not uncontested. This should not interfere with battlefield seizures."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 273
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:56 pm

Was there ever any clarification as to what clause 8 intends to accomplish?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:04 pm

Liberimery wrote:Was there ever any clarification as to what clause 8 intends to accomplish?

"Catastrophe."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 273
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:59 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Liberimery wrote:Was there ever any clarification as to what clause 8 intends to accomplish?

"Catastrophe."


Is it about captured arsenals? My own?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:59 pm

Liberimery wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Catastrophe."


Is it about captured arsenals? My own?

"All of them."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 273
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:04 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Liberimery wrote:
Is it about captured arsenals? My own?

"All of them."


The vague wording of clause 8 would seem to violate conventions on the proper use of the English Language. I do not mean to imply that a member of the General Secretariat would not know the rules nor that they would intentionally put in a vaguely worded clause into a resolution to force a policy that may otherwise lose votes if fully explained, but I would like this matter clarified and would ask that the proposal better explain the intent. Who does clause 8 apply to? When does it apply? What is the intended goal of the clause and what current problem does it solve? Why is included in a resolution about occupied territories?

I am very concerned about your lack of clarification on an issue of Nuclear Arms. The ramifications of such a clause are too great for my nation to not demand a more verbose answer.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8431
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:44 pm

Language rules aren't an IC matter, because in the WA universe, one would expect that everything is translated. Moreover, the rule has nothing to do with vagueness, it has to do with understandability and in fact being English. But that aside, it's very clear. There are no exceptions, and it says 'all'.

Let's pretend that the clause is submitted with the rest of the resolution, which is something I sincerely doubt. Considering that nations will not want their arsenals to be destroyed by nuclear fire, it would be more than feasible to simply take all their weapons and drop them into the nearest ocean. Otherwise, just dispose of them by exploding them with conventional explosives in a pit. Nuclear weapons require very specific compression waves, otherwise, they don't work. Then bury the nuclear waste. Nothing all that bad would happen.

These are all disposal methods that would probably take less than five days for a moderately sized arsenal. Even if you have huge arsenals like the United States, this still isn't that huge of a problem because of the speed by which you can just dump them into the ocean. Why? Mostly because the credibility of a nuclear strike capability that cannot actually be used within five days... is marginal to non-existent, defeating the purpose of having the weapons in the first place.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Cosmopolitan borovan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1033
Founded: Jan 18, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Cosmopolitan borovan » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:54 pm

I don't think colonial or winners in war want this. Devastate the enemy as possible and leave no prisoner

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:49 am

Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:I don't think colonial or winners in war want this. Devastate the enemy as possible and leave no prisoner

"That is already illegal, ambassador."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17664
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:45 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:it would be more than feasible to simply take all their weapons and drop them into the nearest ocean.
Governments within the ocean might object...

^_^
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:49 am

"I don't see the need to continue discussing the TOTALLY SERIOUS AND NOT AT ALL A JOKE that is Clause 8. Its clearly settled law."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:35 am

“Clause 4dii seems overly restrictive, since there is no restriction on what constitutes natural resources. This could, depending on the defintion used, stop military forces from using natural water in order to keep their soldiers alive and healthy. Furthermore, utilization is a very broad term and could include simply using natural rocks, which are resources, defensively. There needs to be some qualifications on what sort of natural resources need apply.

Also, remove clause 8.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:45 am

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 4dii seems overly restrictive, since there is no restriction on what constitutes natural resources. This could, depending on the defintion used, stop military forces from using natural water in order to keep their soldiers alive and healthy. Furthermore, utilization is a very broad term and could include simply using natural rocks, which are resources, defensively. There needs to be some qualifications on what sort of natural resources need apply.

Also, remove clause 8.”


"I don't believe either water nor natural topographic features can be reasonably said to fuel a war effort. Unless, I suppose, your soldiers are armed with squirtguns?

"I'm willing to die on the hill of Clause 8."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:51 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 4dii seems overly restrictive, since there is no restriction on what constitutes natural resources. This could, depending on the defintion used, stop military forces from using natural water in order to keep their soldiers alive and healthy. Furthermore, utilization is a very broad term and could include simply using natural rocks, which are resources, defensively. There needs to be some qualifications on what sort of natural resources need apply.

Also, remove clause 8.”


"I don't believe either water nor natural topographic features can be reasonably said to fuel a war effort. Unless, I suppose, your soldiers are armed with squirtguns?

"I'm willing to die on the hill of Clause 8."

“Some military equipment requires a water component in order to prevent overheating, and simply using the water to keep the soldiers hydrated could count as part of a war effort. Many military vehicles also need water to allow them to run smoothly. On the topographical features, there’s are numerous strategic advantages that can be gained from terrain, which have been decisively in winning many battles.

I think we will all be dying, on or off hills, in the event of clause 8.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:56 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
"I don't believe either water nor natural topographic features can be reasonably said to fuel a war effort. Unless, I suppose, your soldiers are armed with squirtguns?

"I'm willing to die on the hill of Clause 8."

“Some military equipment requires a water component in order to prevent overheating, and simply using the water to keep the soldiers hydrated could count as part of a war effort. Many military vehicles also need water to allow them to run smoothly. On the topographical features, there’s are numerous strategic advantages that can be gained from terrain, which have been decisively in winning many battles.

I think we will all be dying, on or off hills, in the event of clause 8.”



"I strongly suspect that those uses are too de minimis to function as a violation. Otherwise, aspirating soldiers could be found to have coopted an occupied territory's air. However, I suppose I could change the wording from fueling the war effort to creating war materiel.

"Perhaps. Unless you happen to own stock in ValutTec..."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:15 am

OOC: Bump

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Xanthal
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1023
Founded: Apr 16, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Xanthal » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:11 pm

Is there any reasonable way to decouple the expectations for proper conduct of an occupying entity from the military context used here? Before getting too deep into the text I'd first like to address the possibility of broadening the definition of what constitutes an occupation and therefore falls under the protections of the proposed resolution.
General Assembly IC
Security Council OOC

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8431
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:34 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:Otherwise, aspirating soldiers could be found to have coopted an occupied territory's air.

Praussian troops cross the Denish border into Sellsig. Arrested by a WA gnome: « You are under arrest for stealing Denish air! You go to jail! »

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:39 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Otherwise, aspirating soldiers could be found to have coopted an occupied territory's air.

Praussian troops cross the Denish border into Sellsig. Arrested by a WA gnome: « You are under arrest for stealing Denish air! You go to jail! »

"Thank you for the reminder! Adjustment made."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Allied Sapients, Laluna Isle, Lord Dominator, Tenkyoku

Advertisement

Remove ads