NationStates

The World Assembly,

PREAMBLE

hereby declares:

If a member nation is to engage in hostilities with another member nation, they shall be required to first declare that a state of war exists between them and that other member nation, through either a declaration of war or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war.

I can write faster than I can look stuff up. Tell me if this duplicates something.

Reserved.

Suppose the nation is currently being attacked. Should they wait until issuing a declaration to begin defending themselves?

Incidentally declaring war is problematic in the WA. for reasons that escape me we define war as a consensual act between nationstates. What happens when a nation simply refuses the declaration?

How about GAR#2?

So I don't see the problem with GA 2. Saying that war is consensual does not mean I then cannot regulate the means by which that consent or whatever is obtained.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

The World Assembly,

PREAMBLE

hereby declares:

If a member nation is to engage in hostilities with another member nation, they shall be required to first declare that a state of war exists between them and that other member nation, through either a declaration of war or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war.

I can write faster than I can look stuff up. Tell me if this duplicates something.

WOW!!!
I mean WOW!!
Sorry what I was trying to say was...
...WOW!!!
And to think that some ask why i refuse to join the WA!

The Canadian Confederacy of Provinces wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

The World Assembly,

PREAMBLE

hereby declares:

If a member nation is to engage in hostilities with another member nation, they shall be required to first declare that a state of war exists between them and that other member nation, through either a declaration of war or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war.

I can write faster than I can look stuff up. Tell me if this duplicates something.

WOW!!!
I mean WOW!!
Sorry what I was trying to say was...
...WOW!!!
And to think that some ask why i refuse to join the WA!

I can assure you this resolution wouldn't fly far in the WA, even if it was put to a vote.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:So I don't see the problem with GA 2. Saying that war is consensual does not mean I then cannot regulate the means by which that consent or whatever is obtained.

Consent to war cannot be obtained without both parties involved knowing of each other's intention to commit to war.

Joke drafts belong here.

“I love it. It’s simple yet very effective in attaining its aim. Of course, the presence of a preamble would be nice and the ‘hereby’ should be capitalised, but that can’t wait until later drafts.”

The actual document is called "A Declaration of War" and is typically delivered by the attacking nation's ambassador to a formal representative of the defending nation's government (Typically a head of state or the foreign minister.). The declaration announces that a state of war exists between the two nations the goals and outcomes of the war, and lists the Cause Belloci (reasons for war) that justify the aggressor's decision. The US Declaration of Independence is a famous war declaration and follows the basic format of war. It declares the intent to leave the British government, the goal of the action, and the reasons for leaving (the bulk of the document).

The aggressor nation may not attack without a declaration and doing so is considered a war crime even if the message was sent but not received. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor famously was intended to come after the Ambassador at the embassy submitted the declaration to the US Secretary of State, but the telegram between Japan and its Embassy was encrypted and took longer than expected for the Japanese to decrypt and translate the documents to English and the raid occurred and concluded before the declaration was formerly delivered and acknowledged. What's more, due to confusion caused by crossing the international date line, the document said delivered was dated 12/08/41, which was the proper date for the near simultaneous invasion of the Philippines but not the day the Pearl Harbor despite their near proximity. From the Japanese perspective the attack unfolded on the 8th but the mistakes in delivering the Declaration are why December 7th is the date that lives in infamy. It also did mean that under war conventions, Japan did act unlawfully as surprise attacks of such a nature are unlawful.

The defending nation does not need to make a declaration of war, though they normally do just in part to cover their ass and in part because they make great propaganda both at home and abroad. Allied nations of the defender typically will issue declarations of war but these typically cite the treaty that states that the ally will veiw any attack on the defending nation as an attack on themselves and they are also typically are propeganda pieces to boot. Winston Churchill's declaration on Japan in WWII was much more formal than FDR's infamy speech. As he noted to an aid, it was to show that they were not the aggressors "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."

Wallenburg wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:So I don't see the problem with GA 2. Saying that war is consensual does not mean I then cannot regulate the means by which that consent or whatever is obtained.

Consent to war cannot be obtained without both parties involved knowing of each other's intention to commit to war.

Yeah, I'm struggling to see how this isn't duplication.

Auralia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Consent to war cannot be obtained without both parties involved knowing of each other's intention to commit to war.

Yeah, I'm struggling to see how this isn't duplication.

OOC: Agreed on duplication (unfortunately, since I otherwise quite like the idea). The problem with using one-sided ultimatums is that you can demand something impossible from a nation (either literally impossible; or by setting a time limit that makes, say, law change by that time, even if the target nation was willing to change it, impossible, by their own laws; or by demanding something that a democratic nation is known to be unwilling to do due to the attitudes of the majority of their voters) in your ultimatum, and them failing to do an impossible thing should not be counted as consent.

Put in simpler terms, I could demand that you levitate (in RL) by the time my countdown from ten reaches zero, or I punch you in the face. Are you consenting to be punched in the face when you fail to do the impossible?

I know partial duplication is allowed when you're expanding on a narrow topic vaguely covered by a broader existing resolution, but this currently fails that requirement, and possibly contradicts it.