[PASSED] Command Responsibility

[Wallenburg]

(lesser being as in swarms of insectiods that eat everything in their path and cannibalistic mutants)

OOC: Unfortunately, the CoCR applies to all sentient beings and, as it stands, the Elyreian Delegate has no idea what your nation is fighting aside from "lesser beings". You may want to clarify.

No it doesn't. It applies to all sapient beings. Cats and parrots and mollusks don't get the same protections as actual people.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Unfortunately, the CoCR applies to all sentient beings and, as it stands, the Elyreian Delegate has no idea what your nation is fighting aside from "lesser beings". You may want to clarify.

No it doesn't. It applies to all sapient beings. Cats and parrots and mollusks don't get the same protections as actual people.

OOC: But not, apparently, to the two monkeys fucking a greased watermelon, as they have become a political ideology. What a terrible thing I have done to those monkeys.

[Dimokarthis]

Regional alliances can police themselves, and nations do own their own military forces. One very big man with a very big gun seems more like a threat to weaker nations, a way to convince us to go the way of the big boys or face sanctions, or worse consequences. Will this Overwatch threaten my people if we do not go the ways of the capitalist?

- President President (The Goblin President, Me)

"Regional alliances

"Regional alliances can only police themselves if the constituents want to be policed. The World Assembly, on the other hand, equalizes representation between the militarily weak and the militarily strong nations. The powerful nations cannot easily vote themselves out a humanitarian obligation.

"Nothing in this law has anything to do with capitalism, communism, fascism, theocracy, anarchy, corporatism, or two-monkeys-fucking-a-greased-watermelon-ism. If you bothered to read it, you would know that."

Okay, reading over this proposal, it seems to just be a way to hold war criminals responsible? Which seems... reasonable. I'll be changing my vote. But you have a tone issue.

- President President (The Goblin President, Me, Who Uses Nice Words Not Like You)

[Separatist Peoples]

"Regional alliances

"Regional alliances can only police themselves if the constituents want to be policed. The World Assembly, on the other hand, equalizes representation between the militarily weak and the militarily strong nations. The powerful nations cannot easily vote themselves out a humanitarian obligation.

"Nothing in this law has anything to do with capitalism, communism, fascism, theocracy, anarchy, corporatism, or two-monkeys-fucking-a-greased-watermelon-ism. If you bothered to read it, you would know that."

Okay, reading over this proposal, it seems to just be a way to hold war criminals responsible? Which seems... reasonable. I'll be changing my vote. But you have a tone issue.

- President President (The Goblin President, Me, Who Uses Nice Words Not Like You)

"My only issue is with people who don't read the proposed resolution before trying to poke holes in it, ambassador. In light of that failure, my tone is entirely appropriate."

[Elyreia]

No it doesn't. It applies to all sapient beings. Cats and parrots and mollusks don't get the same protections as actual people.

Our apologies for misusing "sentient" when "sapient" was the word we desired to use. Thank you for your kind correction.

Also, I believe sapience requires the ability to "be", hence "sapient beings". Cats and mollusks do not philosophically meet the standards of "being" in this definition, so they are not "beings". The delegate we were discussing this with was simply stating "lesser beings", i.e. beings that meet sapience requirements, are not simply animals, but are yet somehow inferior to the being they are compared to.

Lots of hair splitting, I know, let me know if you've lost our train of thought...

[Wallenburg]

No it doesn't. It applies to all sapient beings. Cats and parrots and mollusks don't get the same protections as actual people.

Our apologies for misusing "sentient" when "sapient" was the word we desired to use. Thank you for your kind correction.

Also, I believe sapience requires the ability to "be", hence "sapient beings". Cats and mollusks do not philosophically meet the standards of "being" in this definition, so they are not "beings".

That's my point ambassador.

The delegate we were discussing this with was simply stating "lesser beings", i.e. beings that meet sapience requirements, are not simply animals, but are yet somehow inferior to the being they are compared to.

The individual you are criticizing made it explicitly clear that 'lesser beings' refers to some collection of eusocial insects, like ants but far more deadly and aggressive. Ants are not people, and giant ants that prey upon people go far beyond the realm of 'pest'.

[Elyreia]

The individual you are criticizing made it explicitly clear that 'lesser beings' refers to some collection of eusocial insects, like ants but far more deadly and aggressive. Ants are not people, and giant ants that prey upon people go far beyond the realm of 'pest'.

Last I recall, that was not made explicitly clear until after my initial dialogue with that delegate.

[Zen Beatitudes]

'Ignorance' is a defense?

Excellent.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: If they are genuinely a hive mind then there might be a legitimate argument that existing GA resolutions only protect that hive-mind as a whole, and not each of its physically-separate bodies...

In the case of a psionic hive-mind like the Stepford-Cuckoos/Five-in-One from Marvel? Here it is still a hive-mind but each body also has an individual personality.

In that particular situation, maybe not... but I did only say "might"...

[Nyauwu]

I must say, at first we were pleasantly surprised with the proposal and promoted it among our region as a legal weapon against fascist and imperialist regimes. But I have just received notice that the Separatist Peoples have seen fit in their authority as member of the GenSec to approve a proposal to repeal “Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities” on the grounds that "men are both psychologically and physically better suited for the battlefield", "scientists do not properly comprehend the potential harm of a child missing either a father or a mother" and "If an organization does not want to contain individuals of certain groups it has that right and should not be coerced otherwise"
Is this who you are? Is this the kind of people we are trusting with regulating international law? One who allows for violent homophobia and misogyny to be discussed as a valid proposal for international law? But then again I know not what I expected from spineless liberals who care not about the wellbeing of humanity but above all the maintenance of the status quo.
I will be urging a boycott and sanctions among socialist nations against the Separatist Peoples if they do not start taking civil rights and social justice seriously.

[Konkoa Glot]

I risk a lot by saying this, but will marsupials be protected by this act? I support it either way.

[Maowi]

I must say, at first we were pleasantly surprised with the proposal and promoted it among our region as a legal weapon against fascist and imperialist regimes. But I have just received notice that the Separatist Peoples have seen fit in their authority as member of the GenSec to approve a proposal to repeal “Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities” on the grounds that "men are both psychologically and physically better suited for the battlefield", "scientists do not properly comprehend the potential harm of a child missing either a father or a mother" and "If an organization does not want to contain individuals of certain groups it has that right and should not be coerced otherwise"
Is this who you are? Is this the kind of people we are trusting with regulating international law? One who allows for violent homophobia and misogyny to be discussed as a valid proposal for international law? But then again I know not what I expected from spineless liberals who care not about the wellbeing of humanity but above all the maintenance of the status quo.
I will be urging a boycott and sanctions among socialist nations against the Separatist Peoples if they do not start taking civil rights and social justice seriously.

First of all, that shouldn't have anything to do with your opinion on this proposal. Secondly, Sep merely marked the repeal as legal, i.e. it doesn't violate any of the rules for writing proposals. This is unrelated to Sep's opinion on the matter.

[Kenmoria]

I risk a lot by saying this, but will marsupials be protected by this act? I support it either way.

(OOC: What do you mean? If the marsupials are sapient then, yes, they will fall under the purview of this act. If you just mean sentient marsupials, then I say that this proposal has nothing to do with animal rights.)

[Konkoa Glot]

I risk a lot by saying this, but will marsupials be protected by this act? I support it either way.

(OOC: What do you mean? If the marsupials are sapient then, yes, they will fall under the purview of this act. If you just mean sentient marsupials, then I say that this proposal has nothing to do with animal rights.)

I suggest you talk to @fedele, my regional delegate, he will tell you everything.

[Separatist Peoples]

I must say, at first we were pleasantly surprised with the proposal and promoted it among our region as a legal weapon against fascist and imperialist regimes. But I have just received notice that the Separatist Peoples have seen fit in their authority as member of the GenSec to approve a proposal to repeal “Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities” on the grounds that "men are both psychologically and physically better suited for the battlefield", "scientists do not properly comprehend the potential harm of a child missing either a father or a mother" and "If an organization does not want to contain individuals of certain groups it has that right and should not be coerced otherwise"
Is this who you are? Is this the kind of people we are trusting with regulating international law? One who allows for violent homophobia and misogyny to be discussed as a valid proposal for international law? But then again I know not what I expected from spineless liberals who care not about the wellbeing of humanity but above all the maintenance of the status quo.
I will be urging a boycott and sanctions among socialist nations against the Separatist Peoples if they do not start taking civil rights and social justice seriously.

OOC: You've absolutely no idea what GenSec does, do you?

GenSec marks proposals legal or illegal based on the forum rules. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with content or political position. We approve legal but bad proposals. We discard illegal but good proposals. Substance is irrelevant. Kindly do yourself a favor and read through the Rules stickied at the top of the forum. You will go much, much further here.

[Vrama]

Unacceptable. The divine word of the king is law. If the military fails to follow His Majesty's orders, all hell breaks loose. There will be order. Any member who fails to follow orders shall be subject to execution pursuant to Sec. 107 of our Code of Conduct.

"Forcing soldiers to commit war crimes in violation of the law places them in the unenviable position of choosing whether to break domestic law or international law. This is manifestly unfair to the soldier and an unreasonable tool for the unscrupulous commander. Your objection is noted and ignored. I could not give a bent nickel about your king's allegedly divine word."

Vraman soldiers do not commit war crimes! Those who violate our laws will receive their deserved punishment.

[Rat Piss]

"I'm a bit confused, while I found plenty of nice words that had me nodding along happily in the body of this resolution itself, there was a tiny bit regarding increasing budgets? I can't see why any of this has gotta involve handing over extra cash to some cops"

[Wallenburg]

"Forcing soldiers to commit war crimes in violation of the law places them in the unenviable position of choosing whether to break domestic law or international law. This is manifestly unfair to the soldier and an unreasonable tool for the unscrupulous commander. Your objection is noted and ignored. I could not give a bent nickel about your king's allegedly divine word."

Vraman soldiers do not commit war crimes! Those who violate our laws will receive their deserved punishment.

"You indicated your opposition on the basis that 'the divine word of the king' must be adhered to when that word is to commit war crimes. So clearly your soldiers do commit war crimes, or you would have no reason to oppose this resolution."

[Vrama]

Vraman soldiers do not commit war crimes! Those who violate our laws will receive their deserved punishment.

"You indicated your opposition on the basis that 'the divine word of the king' must be adhered to when that word is to commit war crimes. So clearly your soldiers do commit war crimes, or you would have no reason to oppose this resolution."

That is not correct. We are not committing war crimes. The only conflict at the moment is a purely internal one. And most of these rebels have already been eradicated. Captured rebels are even given the benefit of a trial before being executed. That is more than fair considering they assassinated the previous king and tried to overthrow the government!

Nearly 3/4 of the Pavana region is back under royal control. Further, you should be happy to know that His Majesty's government will be issuing a general amnesty and pardon to those who surrender, take an oath of allegiance, and put down their weapons.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You indicated your opposition on the basis that 'the divine word of the king' must be adhered to when that word is to commit war crimes. So clearly your soldiers do commit war crimes, or you would have no reason to oppose this resolution."

That is not correct. We are not committing war crimes. The only conflict at the moment is a purely internal one. And most of these rebels have already been eradicated. Captured rebels are even given the benefit of a trial before being executed. That is more than fair considering they assassinated the previous king and tried to overthrow the government!

Nearly 3/4 of the Pavana region is back under royal control. Further, you should be happy to know that His Majesty's government will be issuing a general amnesty and pardon to those who surrender, take an oath of allegiance, and put down their weapons.

"Then this proposal shouldn't be a problem for you."

[Vrama]

That is not correct. We are not committing war crimes. The only conflict at the moment is a purely internal one. And most of these rebels have already been eradicated. Captured rebels are even given the benefit of a trial before being executed. That is more than fair considering they assassinated the previous king and tried to overthrow the government!

Nearly 3/4 of the Pavana region is back under royal control. Further, you should be happy to know that His Majesty's government will be issuing a general amnesty and pardon to those who surrender, take an oath of allegiance, and put down their weapons.

"Then this proposal shouldn't be a problem for you."

Yes, but this potentially gives our soldiers cause to claim, whether correct or not, that an order violates international law. Said soldier could then refuse orders, even if those order are technically lawful. There are some things that are obvious war crimes, and others that might toe-the-line of being illegal but are still legal. Lawful orders need to be obeyed or discipline breaks down.

This resolution is a threat to the discipline of all militaries.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Then this proposal shouldn't be a problem for you."

Yes, but this potentially gives our soldiers cause to claim, whether correct or not, that an order violates international law. Said soldier could then refuse orders, even if those order are technically lawful. There are some things that are obvious war crimes, and others that might toe-the-line of being illegal but are still legal. Lawful orders need to be obeyed or discipline breaks down.

This resolution is a threat to the discipline of all militaries.

"Then don't put your troops into positions that they think are probably war crimes."

[WA Kitty Kops]

A half-grown black cat settles down comfortably in the chair the Araraukarian acting ambassador has left empty for a while, and starts purring.

[Vaxian Imperium]

“The Imperium remains eternal even without “support” from the world assembly and lesser nations, we can continue at peak perform for centuries in complete isolation. The Assembly scares is alittle and our soldiers are valiant in their fight and what they deem necessary must be done”

Vaktus

[Vrama]

Yes, but this potentially gives our soldiers cause to claim, whether correct or not, that an order violates international law. Said soldier could then refuse orders, even if those order are technically lawful. There are some things that are obvious war crimes, and others that might toe-the-line of being illegal but are still legal. Lawful orders need to be obeyed or discipline breaks down.

This resolution is a threat to the discipline of all militaries.

"Then don't put your troops into positions that they think are probably war crimes."

A soldier could simply say they think it is a war crime, even if it's obviously not. A soldier could be ordered to do drills but refuses because they say "that might be a war crime." Would you allow your soldiers to do that? Of course not. No nation would. This resolution, as written, opens the door to abuse and disorder.