[PASSED] Command Responsibility

[Separatist Peoples]

IC: The young woman on the Araraukarian seat frowns as she tries to decipher some handwritten notes. "Um, the clause four says you need to sack commanders after a military court has decided they've done what the proposal says needs to be criminalized, but isn't that a loophole for nations that don't want to obey, as all they'd need to do was to not do the military court bit? Like, I get that you want to separate the whole "yes they did wrong" from "and this is their punishment for the wrongdoing" parts, but wouldn't the "yes they did wrong" work through any kind of court, not just military one? Especially if you've got no military and thus no military court, but you got these military-like forces, like private armies or something, that do the dirty work normally done by militaries."

OOC: In case the intern is being unclear, rather than specifically require a court martial to decide the commander has broken the proposal's commandments, couldn't you just require a legal procedure of any kind to determine it, separate from criminal punishment?

"I believe that any nation with a military organization will have designated military courts, and so the term "court martial" is applicable. I also believe that anybody involved with protracting a war should be subject to the military code. I cannot see a legal interpretation of "court martial" that excludes civilian courts when there exists no military justice system to the extent that the perpetrators evade justice. However, I suspect I can insert a clause that resolves this explicitly without the need to broaden the term."

[Visionary Union]

OOC: Despite reading previous replies, I'm yet to understand on who falls the responsibility in a case of a Prime Minister/President gives the order to commit war crimes. On the civilian politican, or on the Chief Commamder who relied it forward?

OOC: both. Though, the civilian commander doesn't have a real command to lose, so its theoretically possible such a leader could be permitted office after such a violation. However, I think it so unlikely that a nation would permit a convicted war criminal to hold office multiple times. Not much for it though.

That alone will cause me to vote against this offer should it come to it.

Also, if I may borrow from a real life case, here in the IDF we have a thing called "Completely illegal order", "ilegal order" and "order".

That is silly. An order is legal or it is not.

No?
Legal order: Go do your guard duty.
Ilegal order: Buy from your own money stuff for your commander. (should be followed, but reported immediately afterwards).
Completely ilegal order: Execute this innocent guy.
Do you see the difference now?

OOC: Its quite simple. I've done it. If the order violates the law in it's necessary execution, it is not a legal order. If the order does not violate the law, it isn't an illegal order. An order that is ambiguously illegal is really only a problem if the illegal interpretation is executed. It is a very simple dichotomy.

I disagree with your absurd notion of thinking that laws only define what is legal and ilegal orders. OOC: I don't want to fall into the old ad hominem claims, but the difference between all the orders that I listed becomes quite clear once you enlisted/get drafted.

[Separatist Peoples]

That alone will cause me to vote against this offer should it come to it.

OOC: ok.

No?
Legal order: Go do your guard duty.
Ilegal order: Buy from your own money stuff for your commander. (should be followed, but reported immediately afterwards).
Completely ilegal order: Execute this innocent guy.
Do you see the difference now?

OOC: The second two are both illegal. There is no reason to require compliance with the second. Thats silly.

I disagree with your absurd notion of thinking that laws only define what is legal and ilegal orders. OOC: I don't want to fall into the old ad hominem claims, but the difference between all the orders that I listed becomes quite clear once you enlisted/get drafted.

OOC: Your argument presupposes a natural law source, insofar as you dispute that the law only defines legality, when the authority of an order is rooted, practically, in the legal authority of the one giving the order. An officer that, absent law baring this, orders a soldier to torture an enemy soldier has not given an illegal order because there is no law that makes it illegal. There is no universal truth that supercedes law and governs what makes an order lawful. Were that the case, we would not need to regulate conduct in wartime. Your argument is silly.

[Visionary Union]

No?
Legal order: Go do your guard duty.
Ilegal order: Buy from your own money stuff for your commander. (should be followed, but reported immediately afterwards).
Completely ilegal order: Execute this innocent guy.
Do you see the difference now?

OOC: The second two are both illegal. There is no reason to require compliance with the second. Thats silly.

OOC: Yes, there is. Discipline. Chains of command. That's how armies work around the world.

I disagree with your absurd notion of thinking that laws only define what is legal and ilegal orders. OOC: I don't want to fall into the old ad hominem claims, but the difference between all the orders that I listed becomes quite clear once you enlisted/get drafted.

OOC: Your argument presupposes a natural law source, insofar as you dispute that the law only defines legality, when the authority of an order is rooted, practically, in the legal authority of the one giving the order. An officer that, absent law baring this, orders a soldier to torture an enemy soldier has not given an illegal order because there is no law that makes it illegal. There is no universal truth that supercedes law and governs what makes an order lawful. Were that the case, we would not need to regulate conduct in wartime. Your argument is silly.

OOC: While I'm not an expert on passed WA resolutions, I'm willing to bet that there is one against war crimes which should fit for all those purposes.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Yes, there is. Discipline. Chains of command. That's how armies work around the world.

OOC: Forcing soldiers to obey a legal command and seek justice after is at best a method of abuse by the chain of command, and at worst a way to excuse atrocities by pinning failure to seek justice on the soldier. Thats bullshit, and I'm not interjecting that kind of chaos.

OOC: While I'm not an expert on passed WA resolutions, I'm willing to bet that there is one against war crimes which should fit for all those purposes.

OOC: There are. Look at GARs # 317, 334, 340, 345, 348, 356, and 358. Please also note the author.

Thats the point. The source of law is the exercise of sovereign power, not a natural truth that supercedes law. As such, the law is the only thing that defines whether an order is legal or illegal, since there is no other source of authority that dictates what is legal and illegal. Its basic legal philosophy.

[Araraukar]

"However, I suspect I can insert a clause that resolves this explicitly without the need to broaden the term."

The intern smiles. "Thank you, ambassador. I know nations like mine are a bit extreme, in terms of lack of military, but-" she hesitates and looks around as if to see no other Araraukarian is within hearing distance, before continuing, "I'm fairly sure our coast guard and border control, though technically part of law enforcement, would likely count as military-like enough for this proposal. But they don't have any special investigative system of their own, on whether laws have been broken, and instead such complaints are investigated just the same as if they were regular police patrols in one of the cities, and that system is by definition completely civilian."

OOC notes: She's young enough and inexperienced enough to cringe at even hinting at some of Araraukar's police forces branches being "military-like", since that's basically serious slander in Araraukar. She also doesn't know of the actual atrocities the coast guard has committed in the past (note: prior to Araraukar joining WA) to keep unwanted foreigners from getting onto Araraukarian soil.

[Visionary Union]

OOC: Yes, there is. Discipline. Chains of command. That's how armies work around the world.

OOC: Forcing soldiers to obey a legal command and seek justice after is at best a method of abuse by the chain of command, and at worst a way to excuse atrocities by pinning failure to seek justice on the soldier. Thats bullshit, and I'm not interjecting that kind of chaos.

OOC: While I agree with you that forcing soldiers to obey those kind of orders and only then those soldiers can seek justice for that, it just how armies work. You don't start questioning anything your commanders order you to do, because they have the power and the authority, not you.

OOC: While I'm not an expert on passed WA resolutions, I'm willing to bet that there is one against war crimes which should fit for all those purposes.

OOC: There are. Look at GARs # 317, 334, 340, 345, 348, 356, and 358. Please also note the author.

Thats the point. The source of law is the exercise of sovereign power, not a natural truth that supercedes law. As such, the law is the only thing that defines whether an order is legal or illegal, since there is no other source of authority that dictates what is legal and illegal. Its basic legal philosophy.

OOC: I feel like every military should establish for itself what makes an order illegal or legal. The WA shouldn't try to legalize it in my opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: While I agree with you that forcing soldiers to obey those kind of orders and only then those soldiers can seek justice for that, it just how armies work. You don't start questioning anything your commanders order you to do, because they have the power and the authority, not you.

OOC: Funny, its not how it works in the US. Even if it did, why should the WA permit a system that promotes abuse to remain? Merely because the violation is comparably minor? That doesn't work for me.

OOC: I feel like every military should establish for itself what makes an order illegal or legal. The WA shouldn't try to legalize it in my opinion.

OOC: Why are you so insistent that the WA ignore war crimes? I hardly see the concern, since the international community in the real world already declared certain orders manifestly illegal, and that was a group of civilians hashing it all out.

Nonetheless, I'm not going to change to suit your preferences when the alterations would clearly permit abuse, especially when your sole argument boils down to an appeal to military tradition.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Why are you so insistent that the WA ignore war crimes?

OOC: So the proposal is only about war crimes? That would likely make most complaints from others go away, as the legality of commands violating or not violating their own laws on lesser matters would remain to be decided by the nation in question.

[Falcania]

Loathe though I am to get bogged down in minutiae, I fear the minutiae may be relevant in the case of nations such as the Free Kingdom. While obviously the Combined Strike Force and the Defensive Supremacy Force are organised military divisions and fall squarely and clearly within the jurisdiction of the legislation, as do the numerous legitimate military contractors in the private sector, defence of the Free Kingdom has always been a primary duty of (and, historically, a privilege enjoyed by) every person in the Free Kingdom, and the line between "militia" and, as it has been suggested, a "decentralised mob". I surely cannot be the only delegation from a member state that has, in its traditions, what I will call in the common tongue an "armed element without a necessarily clear command structure". Though the delegations from other nations have, in the past, insinuated that the Free Kingdom's compliance with international law has not always been as strict as perhaps the Assembly would desire, I would like to assure the drafters that we are acting in good faith when we suggest we have concerns where our civilians may be subject to military law.

[Blueflarst]

I have simple polite answer: No, thanks.

"Your opposition is noted. You need not contribute any more."

Note my opposition aswell you will not say me the Imperator of Blueflarst how to command my armies and you will not rise up rights for soldiers

[Separatist Peoples]

Loathe though I am to get bogged down in minutiae, I fear the minutiae may be relevant in the case of nations such as the Free Kingdom. While obviously the Combined Strike Force and the Defensive Supremacy Force are organised military divisions and fall squarely and clearly within the jurisdiction of the legislation, as do the numerous legitimate military contractors in the private sector, defence of the Free Kingdom has always been a primary duty of (and, historically, a privilege enjoyed by) every person in the Free Kingdom, and the line between "militia" and, as it has been suggested, a "decentralised mob". I surely cannot be the only delegation from a member state that has, in its traditions, what I will call in the common tongue an "armed element without a necessarily clear command structure". Though the delegations from other nations have, in the past, insinuated that the Free Kingdom's compliance with international law has not always been as strict as perhaps the Assembly would desire, I would like to assure the drafters that we are acting in good faith when we suggest we have concerns where our civilians may be subject to military law.

"Its simple. Insofar as there is a chain of command, the officer giving illegal commands must be punished, or the officer in charge must take steps to punish those who violate international law. If your civilians act as an armed belligerant force, they give up the privilaged and protections of civilianhood."

"Your opposition is noted. You need not contribute any more."

Note my opposition aswell you will not say me the Imperator of Blueflarst how to command my armies and you will not rise up rights for soldiers

"Begone, Orc! You have no power here!"

[Blueflarst]

Loathe though I am to get bogged down in minutiae, I fear the minutiae may be relevant in the case of nations such as the Free Kingdom. While obviously the Combined Strike Force and the Defensive Supremacy Force are organised military divisions and fall squarely and clearly within the jurisdiction of the legislation, as do the numerous legitimate military contractors in the private sector, defence of the Free Kingdom has always been a primary duty of (and, historically, a privilege enjoyed by) every person in the Free Kingdom, and the line between "militia" and, as it has been suggested, a "decentralised mob". I surely cannot be the only delegation from a member state that has, in its traditions, what I will call in the common tongue an "armed element without a necessarily clear command structure". Though the delegations from other nations have, in the past, insinuated that the Free Kingdom's compliance with international law has not always been as strict as perhaps the Assembly would desire, I would like to assure the drafters that we are acting in good faith when we suggest we have concerns where our civilians may be subject to military law.

"Its simple. Insofar as there is a chain of command, the officer giving illegal commands must be punished, or the officer in charge must take steps to punish those who violate international law. If your civilians act as an armed belligerant force, they give up the privilaged and protections of civilianhood."

Note my opposition aswell you will not say me the Imperator of Blueflarst how to command my armies and you will not rise up rights for soldiers

"Begone, Orc! You have no power here!"

I am not an orc show some respect to the militaristic nations dirty gnome

[Separatist Peoples]

"Its simple. Insofar as there is a chain of command, the officer giving illegal commands must be punished, or the officer in charge must take steps to punish those who violate international law. If your civilians act as an armed belligerant force, they give up the privilaged and protections of civilianhood."


"Begone, Orc! You have no power here!"

I am not an orc show some respect to the militaristic nations dirty gnome

"To militaristic nations? Sure. To you? Never. Begone!"

[Blueflarst]

I am not an orc show some respect to the militaristic nations dirty gnome

"To militaristic nations? Sure. To you? Never. Begone!"

Why you do not show respect to me?
Is for ruling good and being a royal dictatorship?
Is for contradicting your liberal utopias?
Is for being a monarchy?
Is for being an capitalist nation?
Is for cutting of the rights of convicted murderers and serial killers letting them on permanent isolation?
Or is for caring to improve the World Assembly with conservative policies?

[Separatist Peoples]

"To militaristic nations? Sure. To you? Never. Begone!"

Why you do not show respect to me?
Is for ruling good and being a royal dictatorship?
Is for contradicting your liberal utopias?
Is for being a monarchy?
Is for being an capitalist nation?
Is for cutting of the rights of convicted murderers and serial killers letting them on permanent isolation?
Or is for caring to improve the World Assembly with conservative policies?

"Its because your contributions here are valueless. They amount to a poor repudiation of the entire draft, which I'm not going to abandon. If you have constructive criticism, I'll listen to it. If all you want is me to give up, you're barking up the wrong tree. My time is too valuable to waste with that pointless back and forth. Begone!"

[Blueflarst]

I am not an orc show some respect to the militaristic nations dirty gnome

"To militaristic nations? Sure. To you? Never. Begone!"

At least my soldiers do not rape or kill civilians at other nations

[Separatist Peoples]

"To militaristic nations? Sure. To you? Never. Begone!"

At least my soldiers do not rape or kill civilians at other nations

"Congratulations. You've met the minimum possible level of decency. Begone."

[Falcania]

Loathe though I am to get bogged down in minutiae, I fear the minutiae may be relevant in the case of nations such as the Free Kingdom. While obviously the Combined Strike Force and the Defensive Supremacy Force are organised military divisions and fall squarely and clearly within the jurisdiction of the legislation, as do the numerous legitimate military contractors in the private sector, defence of the Free Kingdom has always been a primary duty of (and, historically, a privilege enjoyed by) every person in the Free Kingdom, and the line between "militia" and, as it has been suggested, a "decentralised mob". I surely cannot be the only delegation from a member state that has, in its traditions, what I will call in the common tongue an "armed element without a necessarily clear command structure". Though the delegations from other nations have, in the past, insinuated that the Free Kingdom's compliance with international law has not always been as strict as perhaps the Assembly would desire, I would like to assure the drafters that we are acting in good faith when we suggest we have concerns where our civilians may be subject to military law.

"Its simple. Insofar as there is a chain of command, the officer giving illegal commands must be punished, or the officer in charge must take steps to punish those who violate international law. If your civilians act as an armed belligerant force, they give up the privilaged and protections of civilianhood."

There have been occasions - within living memory for some Falcanians, many venerable elders of whom fought in the Tyrannicide of Lord Mathdon Tarrick for example - where citizens of the Free Kingdom have taken up arms, either in defence of their home or to depose an unpopular regime. It has been said that "Regicide is the first great tradition of the Free Kingdom". In many instances these citizens have banded together into militias with de facto command structures - as defined in your legislation, that's all clear and fine. Nor am I among the delegates who is against this legislation because of some perverse love of atrocity.

I fear I am not articulating my concerns clearly. The legislation, as I understand it, seeks to increase the culpability of command elements in a military force - something we laud and endorse - and to provide legal defence for a subordinate who refuses to obey orders that would bring them into contravention of international law - again, something we laud and endorse. My specific concern is that there exist situations whereby the "chain of command", whereby a command element gives an order to a subordinate element, who themselves may be a command element to a further subordinate element, is not the de facto operational model for belligerents. Again, I point to Tyrannicide of Lord Mathdon Tarrick, specifically the actions of the organisation "Quicksilver" whose cell structure incorporated a fluid command structure whereby some combatants were subordinate to other combatants for the purposes of specific operations and in command of those same people for other operations that may have been taking place simultaneously.

I should also like to note that my concerns do not constitute a willingness to vote against the proposed legislation as it is written, nor are they a demand for amendments to be made to the proposed legislation. I merely wish for these concerns to be recognised, and if possible, for some legal clarification to be declared.

[Bears Armed]

I am not an orc show some respect to the militaristic nations dirty gnome

OOC
"orc" is long-established GA slang for nations/ambassadors like yours, as the effective opposite of the better-known 'fluffy'.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Its simple. Insofar as there is a chain of command, the officer giving illegal commands must be punished, or the officer in charge must take steps to punish those who violate international law. If your civilians act as an armed belligerant force, they give up the privilaged and protections of civilianhood."

There have been occasions - within living memory for some Falcanians, many venerable elders of whom fought in the Tyrannicide of Lord Mathdon Tarrick for example - where citizens of the Free Kingdom have taken up arms, either in defence of their home or to depose an unpopular regime. It has been said that "Regicide is the first great tradition of the Free Kingdom". In many instances these citizens have banded together into militias with de facto command structures - as defined in your legislation, that's all clear and fine. Nor am I among the delegates who is against this legislation because of some perverse love of atrocity.

I fear I am not articulating my concerns clearly. The legislation, as I understand it, seeks to increase the culpability of command elements in a military force - something we laud and endorse - and to provide legal defence for a subordinate who refuses to obey orders that would bring them into contravention of international law - again, something we laud and endorse. My specific concern is that there exist situations whereby the "chain of command", whereby a command element gives an order to a subordinate element, who themselves may be a command element to a further subordinate element, is not the de facto operational model for belligerents. Again, I point to Tyrannicide of Lord Mathdon Tarrick, specifically the actions of the organisation "Quicksilver" whose cell structure incorporated a fluid command structure whereby some combatants were subordinate to other combatants for the purposes of specific operations and in command of those same people for other operations that may have been taking place simultaneously.

I should also like to note that my concerns do not constitute a willingness to vote against the proposed legislation as it is written, nor are they a demand for amendments to be made to the proposed legislation. I merely wish for these concerns to be recognised, and if possible, for some legal clarification to be declared.

"I appreciate your candor, ambassador, and I hope you do not take my bluntness for rudeness. As you can no doubt see, I'm often waylaid by absurd opposition. Your inquiry appears to me to involve a decentralized combatant force. I've a two-prong response. First, to the extent that a network of cells were given a directive explicitly or implicitly illegal, the order issuer before diffusion of the cell and the members of the cell are culpable. To the extent that the cells operate independently of an implicitly illegal command, the cell commander is culpable, and their oversight is culpable if there is a nexus between the cell's acts and either an order or lack of punishment."

[Falcania]

There have been occasions - within living memory for some Falcanians, many venerable elders of whom fought in the Tyrannicide of Lord Mathdon Tarrick for example - where citizens of the Free Kingdom have taken up arms, either in defence of their home or to depose an unpopular regime. It has been said that "Regicide is the first great tradition of the Free Kingdom". In many instances these citizens have banded together into militias with de facto command structures - as defined in your legislation, that's all clear and fine. Nor am I among the delegates who is against this legislation because of some perverse love of atrocity.

I fear I am not articulating my concerns clearly. The legislation, as I understand it, seeks to increase the culpability of command elements in a military force - something we laud and endorse - and to provide legal defence for a subordinate who refuses to obey orders that would bring them into contravention of international law - again, something we laud and endorse. My specific concern is that there exist situations whereby the "chain of command", whereby a command element gives an order to a subordinate element, who themselves may be a command element to a further subordinate element, is not the de facto operational model for belligerents. Again, I point to Tyrannicide of Lord Mathdon Tarrick, specifically the actions of the organisation "Quicksilver" whose cell structure incorporated a fluid command structure whereby some combatants were subordinate to other combatants for the purposes of specific operations and in command of those same people for other operations that may have been taking place simultaneously.

I should also like to note that my concerns do not constitute a willingness to vote against the proposed legislation as it is written, nor are they a demand for amendments to be made to the proposed legislation. I merely wish for these concerns to be recognised, and if possible, for some legal clarification to be declared.

"I appreciate your candor, ambassador, and I hope you do not take my bluntness for rudeness. As you can no doubt see, I'm often waylaid by absurd opposition. Your inquiry appears to me to involve a decentralized combatant force. I've a two-prong response. First, to the extent that a network of cells were given a directive explicitly or implicitly illegal, the order issuer before diffusion of the cell and the members of the cell are culpable. To the extent that the cells operate independently of an implicitly illegal command, the cell commander is culpable, and their oversight is culpable if there is a nexus between the cell's acts and either an order or lack of punishment."

My biggest concern for clarification is in situations where no clear chain of command can be identified - in terms of a cell structure, suppose for example a command element A has created multiple cells. The individual cells have no inherent command structure but operate ad-hoc - suppose for example an individual B has given a suggestion to their compatriot C in the same cell.

If Individual C commits an illegal act under WA law, do they have a partial or entire defence under article II section 3, given that the act was carried out under the initiative of Individual C, but on informal suggestion or advice of someone who is not in de facto command, but who may, for example, have some form of informal seniority, in terms of age, experience, reputation , et cetera? In such an arrangement, when does suggestion become order, and when does seniority confer rank?

[Separatist Peoples]

"I appreciate your candor, ambassador, and I hope you do not take my bluntness for rudeness. As you can no doubt see, I'm often waylaid by absurd opposition. Your inquiry appears to me to involve a decentralized combatant force. I've a two-prong response. First, to the extent that a network of cells were given a directive explicitly or implicitly illegal, the order issuer before diffusion of the cell and the members of the cell are culpable. To the extent that the cells operate independently of an implicitly illegal command, the cell commander is culpable, and their oversight is culpable if there is a nexus between the cell's acts and either an order or lack of punishment."

My biggest concern for clarification is in situations where no clear chain of command can be identified - in terms of a cell structure, suppose for example a command element A has created multiple cells. The individual cells have no inherent command structure but operate ad-hoc - suppose for example an individual B has given a suggestion to their compatriot C in the same cell.

If Individual C commits an illegal act under WA law, do they have a partial or entire defence under article II section 3, given that the act was carried out under the initiative of Individual C, but on informal suggestion or advice of someone who is not in de facto command, but who may, for example, have some form of informal seniority, in terms of age, experience, reputation , et cetera? In such an arrangement, when does suggestion become order, and when does seniority confer rank?

"What you describe, to me, sounds like potential for de facto command. But it is a fact-intensive inquiry. If your nation arrests Individual C, you would have to determine if, under your law, the informal suggestion amounts to de facto command for Individual A and Individual B. It was my intention to leave the details to nations and their tailored legal traditions."

[Falcania]

My biggest concern for clarification is in situations where no clear chain of command can be identified - in terms of a cell structure, suppose for example a command element A has created multiple cells. The individual cells have no inherent command structure but operate ad-hoc - suppose for example an individual B has given a suggestion to their compatriot C in the same cell.

If Individual C commits an illegal act under WA law, do they have a partial or entire defence under article II section 3, given that the act was carried out under the initiative of Individual C, but on informal suggestion or advice of someone who is not in de facto command, but who may, for example, have some form of informal seniority, in terms of age, experience, reputation , et cetera? In such an arrangement, when does suggestion become order, and when does seniority confer rank?

"What you describe, to me, sounds like potential for de facto command. But it is a fact-intensive inquiry. If your nation arrests Individual C, you would have to determine if, under your law, the informal suggestion amounts to de facto command for Individual A and Individual B. It was my intention to leave the details to nations and their tailored legal traditions."

I find this legal declaration satisfactory and thank you for it.

[Araraukar]

IC: The intern girl is back, this time with a faxed note. "I have a question for you, ambassador Bell. If a higher commander - let's say in the example of our coast guard, the one responsible for the east coast - gives an order to their subcommanders to "keep foreigners from illegally entering Araraukar by any means necessary", and a subcommander then interpretes that to mean they can sink a refugee boat, killing everyone on board, would the proposal require stripping rank from the sector commander for east coast or the particular patrol commander, who actually gave the illegal order to sink the boat? Given that the sector commander is more likely to be up to date with WA resolutions, it's unlikely they would have meant any means that break the WA law, but the omission of the word "legal" before the word "means" might allow the patrol commander to think their illegal actions are justified."

OOC: That example refers to the "atrocities" I mentioned in OOC earlier.