Page 1 of 7

[AT VOTE] Command Responsibility

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:33 am
by Separatist Peoples
Command Responsibility
International Security | Mild


Shamelessly commending the now sizable body of law intended to regulate conduct during armed conflict for the benefit of all;

Troubled that there yet exist entities that would rather ignore atrocities for their own benefit rather than act upon their moral and legal duty to prevent atrocities actively;

Appalled that there are so few protections for those subordinates ethically trapped between the duty to obey orders and the duty to obey the law; and

Avowing that commanders who permit atrocities are in such wanton dereliction of their duties as to have acquiesced to their subordinate’s heinous acts, and thus have besmirched the honor and privilege of command;

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following:

Article I. Commander Duties

  1. A “commander” is an individual with either de jure authority to control the conduct of members of an armed force, be it regular military, militia, irregular, or other form of paramilitary force, or de facto control of the same.

  2. Commanders have an affirmative duty to prevent or punish their subordinates for violating World Assembly law regulating conduct during armed conflict.

  3. Commanders are criminally liable for:

    1. ordering any act in knowing contravention of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict, or

    2. failing to take necessary action to prevent or punish subordinate violations of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict where the commander knows or has information that allows them to conclude that their subordinates were about to or had contravened those World Assembly laws.
  4. No member state may permit a commander to retain any command after a court martial determines their dereliction of the above duties, notwithstanding other criminal penalties.

  5. Nothing in this article precludes member states from independently enforcing higher military conduct standards for commanders.
Article II. Subordinate Rights and Duties

  1. A subordinate has an affirmative duty to refuse any order from any commander that is manifestly illegal under World Assembly law.

  2. A subordinate who complies with a commander’s reasonable interpretation of an arguable question of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict is not criminally liable for contravening that law, unless there is sufficient evidence that the subordinate knew or should have known that the order was unlawful.

  3. A subordinate who relies in good faith on a commander’s incorrect or misleading knowledge of a situation or other facts may raise that reliance as a partial or total defense against their contravention of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict, unless there is sufficient evidence that the subordinate knew or should have known the actual facts of the situation. Prior failures of military intelligence or situational awareness alone do not constitute sufficient evidence.

  4. No member state may penalize subordinates who refuse, in good faith, to obey an order of uncertain legality under World Assembly law regulating conduct during armed conflict, even if the order is legal in hindsight. Member states will take all prudent steps to treat evidence or investigations of a subordinate's lawful refusal under this Article as privileged information, and may not include it in a subordinate's service record.
Article III. Member State Duties

  1. Member states must routinely train and educate their military personnel about their rights and obligations under World Assembly law regarding military action.

  2. Member states must interpret the language of this resolution liberally where necessary to effectuate the policy goals of holding commanders and soldiers accountable for their actions and disincentivizing culpability in war crimes.

  3. Nothing in this resolution bars the World Assembly from defining the parameters of command responsibility for different violations of World Assembly law, provided those parameters further the goals of accountability for violation and incentives to obey international law.


Taking this off the draft pile. This does duplicate some of the resolutions on war that require prosecution of perpetrators and that declare certain orders manifestly illegal. However, since this seeks to incorporate command responsibility and some of the Nuremburg defense under one umbrella policy, I maintain that the duplication is:
A. Minor, and
B. In furtherance of extrapolation
and is therefore legal under Da Rulez.
If you disagree, well…come at me, bruh.

“Those who would permit their soldiers to murder innocents and commit atrocities are petaQs, without honor and unworthy to command warriors of any nation. One hopes there is a special hell waiting for such beasts. Until we know for sure, the World Assembly should take up the slack.”

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:01 am
by Dawn Kingdom
I have simple polite answer: No, thanks.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:05 am
by Separatist Peoples
Dawn Kingdom wrote:I have simple polite answer: No, thanks.

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

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:09 am
by The New California Republic
OOC: It looks good so far, I especially like the section on subordinates, as it clearly distinguishes that responsibility ultimately lies with the commander except in very specific cases. Kudos. I can't see any obvious formatting/grammar/spelling errors either.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:25 am
by Caracasus
OOC: Not a member of the WA any more - however I've admired your efforts to add a degree of "not napalming civilians and laughing" to international legislation on warfare.

I am wondering here if it might be worth stating if this would apply to the entire chain of command. I.E, the general who gave the overall order to wipe out civilian populations in an area, the Brigadier Generals who see their units carry out those orders, the Majors who pass those orders on down and so on...

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:32 am
by Pan-Asiatic States
No member state may permit a commander to retain any command after a court martial determines their dereliction of the above duties, notwithstanding other criminal penalties.



Image

The Sixth Administration of these Pan-Asiatic States is strongly opposed to this. Dereliction of the above duties may be circumstantial to combat ability, and immediate elimination of talented officers by international law is seen as rather dictatorial and legalistic, an action our Pan-Asiatic States Armed Forces sees as an opportunity for diametrically opposed nations to use as a diplomatic sword, an indirect sanction should they choose fit. 8 of our 9 Soviet-Governors have sworn to a Nay. Congressional decision awaits to be noted.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:34 am
by Greater vakolicci haven
The Haven respectfully disagrees with the text and spirit of this resolution.

One may wonder quite how far up the chain of command we must go to establish culpability; if an order comes directly from the Havenic president that the destruction en masse of enemy cevillian assets is to occur, is he to be punished or the senior military leaders who follow his directions? The commander-general of the army, the lord-admiral of the joint navies, the high air commander of the air force and other senior military figures are, officially, subordinate to the Havenic President. However, the Havenic President is not a member of the military, and thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of military courts. How would such an issue be handled?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:40 am
by The New California Republic
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The Haven respectfully disagrees with the text and spirit of this resolution.

One may wonder quite how far up the chain of command we must go to establish culpability; if an order comes directly from the Havenic president that the destruction en masse of enemy cevillian assets is to occur, is he to be punished or the senior military leaders who follow his directions? The commander-general of the army, the lord-admiral of the joint navies, the high air commander of the air force and other senior military figures are, officially, subordinate to the Havenic President. However, the Havenic President is not a member of the military, and thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of military courts. How would such an issue be handled?

OOC: Sure, why not? Whoever gave the order in question, no matter how high up it goes. If a General, Admiral, Air Marshal etc gave an order to commit genocide, then the buck stops with them, and Article II provides for the subordinates to be charged too in specific circumstances.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:50 am
by Separatist Peoples
"How is it possible that the leader of Haven, who is ostensibly able to control the military, is not culpable for their military orders?"

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:52 am
by Sierra Lyricalia
"I think a simple ban on penalizing members of armed forces who refuse possibly illegal orders isn't gonna be enough. Military forces are really, really intolerant of those who don't follow orders to the letter, and with good reason - even where the refusal or creative interpretation is justified. Any officer or man who refuses an order is going to be a pariah no matter what - they won't be punished, just passed over for promotion and quietly eased out of the service so they can't set any more bad examples for military discipline."

"The bare minimum here is going to be that the refusal to follow orders - in addition to a simple ban on penalties - may not be noted in any service record or other document relevant to the subordinate's conduct and eligibility for promotions and decorations, and must be treated as confidential information of the highest secrecy by any witnesses, investigators, and command authorities - information whose detrimental revealment must be prosecuted in good faith by member nations."

"That won't set your military life or your career track quite back to normal, but it will make it harder to toss you aside for following the law."

"I'd also like to see an explicit proviso in or near Article 2, paragraph 2 that the mere fact of previous failures of military intelligence or situational awareness shall not consititute 'sufficient evidence' that a subordinate should have known to refuse an order where a war crime is found to have been committed."

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:51 am
by Separatist Peoples
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"I think a simple ban on penalizing members of armed forces who refuse possibly illegal orders isn't gonna be enough. Military forces are really, really intolerant of those who don't follow orders to the letter, and with good reason - even where the refusal or creative interpretation is justified. Any officer or man who refuses an order is going to be a pariah no matter what - they won't be punished, just passed over for promotion and quietly eased out of the service so they can't set any more bad examples for military discipline."

"The bare minimum here is going to be that the refusal to follow orders - in addition to a simple ban on penalties - may not be noted in any service record or other document relevant to the subordinate's conduct and eligibility for promotions and decorations, and must be treated as confidential information of the highest secrecy by any witnesses, investigators, and command authorities - information whose detrimental revealment must be prosecuted in good faith by member nations."

"That won't set your military life or your career track quite back to normal, but it will make it harder to toss you aside for following the law."

"I'd also like to see an explicit proviso in or near Article 2, paragraph 2 that the mere fact of previous failures of military intelligence or situational awareness shall not consititute 'sufficient evidence' that a subordinate should have known to refuse an order where a war crime is found to have been committed."

"I will incorporate all of this excellent feedback as soon as I am able, ambassador."

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:51 am
by Dawn Kingdom
So, basically we should punish people who obeyed leader's commands and leader himself because it is against WA law? Have you forgotten that nations may have their own policies and laws that are against WA laws? Further if this proposal will pass, then we have to pay media to upload every new passing legislation or repeal. And I want to note that resolutions are getting passed/repealed very quickly, so we must really fund media to educate our citizens about every new law/repeal. I and many others aren't really fans of funding mass media.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:55 am
by The New California Republic
All replies OOC
Dawn Kingdom wrote:So, basically we should punish people who obeyed leader's commands and leader himself because it is against WA law? Have you forgotten that nations may have their own policies and laws that are against WA laws?

Please read article II again.

Dawn Kingdom wrote:Further if this proposal will pass, then we have to pay media to upload every new passing legislation or repeal. And I want to note that resolutions are getting passed/repealed very quickly, so we must really fund media to educate our citizens about every new law/repeal. I and many others aren't really fans of funding mass media.

What on Earth is this?? How is this even remotely relevant to the proposal being discussed??

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:00 am
by Greater vakolicci haven
Separatist Peoples wrote:"How is it possible that the leader of Haven, who is ostensibly able to control the military, is not culpable for their military orders?"

"The Haven will not extradite senior officials, and crimes against foreigners living in foreign nations are not crimes under Havenic law. Thus, the Havenic President answers to no one if he should wish to order the destruction of a foreign culture, or the deaths of certain troublesome cevillians."

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:03 am
by Separatist Peoples
Dawn Kingdom wrote:So, basically we should punish people who obeyed leader's commands and leader himself because it is against WA law? Have you forgotten that nations may have their own policies and laws that are against WA laws? Further if this proposal will pass, then we have to pay media to upload every new passing legislation or repeal. And I want to note that resolutions are getting passed/repealed very quickly, so we must really fund media to educate our citizens about every new law/repeal. I and many others aren't really fans of funding mass media.


Ooc: if you cannot be assed to read my draft carefully, please dont post. I'm happy to listen to criticism that accurately relates to the draft. I am less tolerant of arguments that mischaractarize the draft.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:10 am
by Separatist Peoples
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"How is it possible that the leader of Haven, who is ostensibly able to control the military, is not culpable for their military orders?"

"The Haven will not extradite senior officials, and crimes against foreigners living in foreign nations are not crimes under Havenic law. Thus, the Havenic President answers to no one if he should wish to order the destruction of a foreign culture, or the deaths of certain troublesome cevillians."

"Then you're in noncompliance with WA law. As such. I'm not sure theres anything more to discuss, unless your noncompliance is caused by an external force."

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:21 am
by United Massachusetts
"We stand in support."

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:31 am
by Imperium Anglorum
LOL the orcs. Sep's got my support.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:41 am
by Aclion
Support
Imperium Anglorum wrote:LOL the orcs. Sep's got my support.

Orcs?

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:44 am
by Separatist Peoples
Aclion wrote:Support
Imperium Anglorum wrote:LOL the orcs. Sep's got my support.

Orcs?

Ooc: term for the bloodthirsty warmongering edgy posters who want to napalm civilians and laugh at it. Basically, players who go for shock value and think brutal war is great, I guess.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:50 am
by Sougra
The only issue I see so far with the proposal itself is a grammatical one, namely:

"Troubled that there yet exist entities that would rather ignore from atrocities for their own benefit rather than act upon their moral and legal duty to prevent atrocities actively;"

I see no reason to add the word from in the proposal. Otherwise, this seems pretty good to me.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:08 am
by Separatist Peoples
Sougra wrote:The only issue I see so far with the proposal itself is a grammatical one, namely:

"Troubled that there yet exist entities that would rather ignore from atrocities for their own benefit rather than act upon their moral and legal duty to prevent atrocities actively;"

I see no reason to add the word from in the proposal. Otherwise, this seems pretty good to me.

Ooc: I have a terrible habit of editing on several different versions and trying to consolidate them after the fact. It inevitably leads to inconsistencies like that. Thanks for finding it!

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:45 am
by Bears Armed
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Aclion wrote:Support

Orcs?

Ooc: term for the bloodthirsty warmongering edgy posters who want to napalm civilians and laugh at it. Basically, players who go for shock value and think brutal war is great, I guess.

OOC: i.e. the converse of "fluffies".

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:38 pm
by Thyerata
OOC: I'm having trouble with Article II. Assuming you're following RL public international law in this resolution, the "I was following orders" defence either doesn't exist, or is severely restricted. If that were true - and I'd need to check my books when I go back to university next week - then Article II is redundant

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:29 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Thyerata wrote:OOC: I'm having trouble with Article II. Assuming you're following RL public international law in this resolution, the "I was following orders" defence either doesn't exist, or is severely restricted. If that were true - and I'd need to check my books when I go back to university next week - then Article II is redundant


OOC: you're not correct. The Nuremburg defense may fly in Nationstates because some nations will consider that acceptable as a defense. Certainly, there is nothing that bans it as a defense, currently. I've limited it. Similarly, I've bolstered it in a select few circumstances, so the opposite approach, that it is never a good defense, isn't always true.

Unlike Real World international law, we assume there is no common law or customary law when writing WA resolutions. If it isn't written into statute, then its the wild west.