NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] Wartime Healthcare Protections

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

[Draft] Wartime Healthcare Protections

Postby Maowi » Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:55 am

Wartime Healthcare Protections


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that GAR 121 provides basic protections for medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Believing that more effective legislation is needed to improve these protections;

Appalled by the perfidy inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Approving that civilians are already protected from similar violence by GAR 317;

Hereby enacts the following:

    1. A ‘patient’ is a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including physical injury and psychological damage.
    2. ‘Non-combatant medical personnel’ are those who provide medical transportation or treatment, who are either unarmed or bear light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care.
    3. A ‘medical facility’ is a site used for medical treatment, triage, or transport and bearing clearly visible markings indicating such.
    4. 'Non-civilian' is in the employment of a nation's military forces.
    5. 'Area bombardment' is a damaging, low-accuracy attack.
  1. Member nations intending to bombard an area must notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of the target area.

  2. The IHACC must:
    1. document the locations of all medical facilities and their associated infrastructure in conflict areas.
    2. maintain strict confidentiality of such information within the organization.
    3. advise member nations whether the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
      1. Member nations' military forces may not bombard an area if the member nation knows of a medical facility or its associated infrastructure within the target area.
      2. Only in the case that member nations' military forces must carry out an area bombardment in order to prevent significant harm to their own personnel or citizens may they do so without confirmation of permission from the IHACC.
      3. Notwithstanding the above, should the IHACC notify the member nation intending to carry out an area bombardment that said bombardment would have a high chance of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure, the member nation's military forces may not carry out the area bombardment.
      4. Otherwise, member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment on another nation until the IHACC notifies them that the planned area bombardment does not have a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
    4. objectively and methodically evaluate whether member nations whose military forces carried out area bombardments acted in accordance with 3.b., and did so in good faith. If not, the IHACC must present any relevant evidence, with the conclusions drawn from such and the arguments used to arrive there, to the World Assembly Compliance Commission as a violation of international law;
    5. notify the administrators of any medical facilities inside member nations at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aid the evacuation of these medical facilities where such help is sought.
  3. Member nations’ military forces may not:
    1. use violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
    2. use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
    3. attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.
  4. Notwithstanding the mandates of clause 4, where such action:
    1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian patients or non-combatant medical personnel, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only, or
    2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy,
    then member nations may use the minimum force possible to achieve the strategical necessity. Violence against non-civilian patients or non-combatant medical personnel for the purposes of reprisal is never a military necessity for member nations.

  5. Member nations’ military forces may not deliberately damage medical facilities, their associated infrastructure, or their supplies, subject to the mandates of clause 3 or unless the medical facility is also used for the advancement of military aims unrelated to medical treatment, triage, or transport, in which case member nations' military forces must make a good-faith effort to do so to the smallest possible detriment of the patients and non-combatant medical personnel and target only the actions advancing military aims unrelated to medical treatment, triage, or transport.


‘This is our proposed “patch” for GAR #121, seeing as all the issues we raised in our draft repeal of said resolution could actually be fixed without needing a repeal. It’s deliberately been written so as only to apply to non-civilians, in order to avoid legality complications with GAR #317 - speaking of which, we are very grateful to Ambassador Bell for allowing us to use some of the C.D.S.P.’s work from GAR #317. The purpose of this is simply consistency.

‘Any and all feedback is appreciated. We particularly seek help with clause four, as we believe that the removal of protections from facilities which also “aid the member nation’s war efforts” - an alternative phrasing we were considering - would be too prone to abuse, and so we prefer to produce a list of specific actions which might be considered “aiding war efforts”. However, such a list could easily get long and contorted and so any advice on how best to address this issue is very welcome. We’d also be grateful for help regarding clause two: we are unsure whether it is a good idea as, on the one hand, it removes the opportunity for member nations in violation of this potential resolution to claim ignorance - but on the other hand, we don’t want to facilitate the execution of war crimes.’
Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. A ‘medical patient’ as a non-civilian person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage;
    2. ‘Medical staff’ as non-civilian people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease;
    3. A ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated or in which medical staff treat injury or disease;
  2. Charges the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee with documenting and making available to member nations the locations of all medical facilities in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared;
  3. Forbids member nations’ military forces from violently attacking medical patients inside medical facilities and from violently attacking medical staff inside medical facilities:

    1. Unless in response to open aggression against them by medical patients or staff, in which case they may respond with equivalent force only;
    2. Except where such action is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy. The use of violence against medical patients or staff for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case a sincere effort must be made to avoid harming medical patients and staff.
Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. a ‘medical patient’ as a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage;
    2. ‘medical staff’ as people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease;
    3. a ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated by medical staff;
  2. Requires member nations intending to carry out area bombardment to notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of the location of the planned area bombardment;

  3. Charges the IHACC with:

    1. documenting the locations of all medical facilities in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared (this information may not be revealed to any person outside of the committee);
    2. notifying member nations, where applicable, that the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility, in which case the member nation may not carry out the area bombardment;
    3. notifying the administrators of any medical facilities at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aiding the evacuation of these medical facilities where it is sought;
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces:

    1. from using violence against non-civilian medical patients inside or travelling to a medical facility;
    2. from using violence against non-civilian medical staff inside or travelling to a medical facility; and
    3. from attempting to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation;
  5. Creates exceptions to the mandates of clause 4, where such action:

    1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian medical patients or staff, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only; or
    2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy. The use of violence against non-civilian medical patients or staff for the purposes of reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;
  6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case the damage deliberately inflicted upon the medical facility must not affect the treatment of medical patients within it.
Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. a ‘medical patient’ as a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage;
    2. ‘medical staff’ as people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease;
    3. a ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated by medical staff;
  2. Requires member nations intending to carry out area bombardment to notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of the location of the planned area bombardment;

  3. Charges the IHACC with:

    1. documenting the locations of all medical facilities in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared (this information may not be revealed to any person outside of the committee);
    2. notifying member nations whether the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility;
      1. member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment on another member nation until the IHACC notifies them that the planned area bombardment does not have a high risk of damaging a medical facility;
    3. notifying the administrators of any medical facilities at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aiding the evacuation of these medical facilities where it is sought;
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces:

    1. from using violence against non-civilian medical patients inside or travelling to a medical facility;
    2. from using violence against non-civilian medical staff inside or travelling to a medical facility; and
    3. from attempting to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation;
  5. Creates exceptions to the mandates of clause 4, where such action:

    1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian medical patients or staff, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only; or
    2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy. The use of violence against non-civilian medical patients or staff for the purposes of reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;
  6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case the damage deliberately inflicted upon the medical facility must not affect the treatment of medical patients within it.
Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. a ‘medical patient’ as a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage;
    2. ‘medical staff’ as people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease;
    3. a ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated by medical staff;
  2. Requires member nations intending to carry out area bombardment to notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of the location of the planned area bombardment;

  3. Charges the IHACC with:

    1. documenting the locations of all medical facilities in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared (this information may not be revealed to any person outside of the committee);
    2. notifying member nations whether the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility;
      1. member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment on another member nation until the IHACC notifies them that the planned area bombardment does not have a high risk of damaging a medical facility;
    3. notifying the administrators of any medical facilities inside member nations at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aiding the evacuation of these medical facilities where it is sought;
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces:

    1. from using violence against non-civilian medical patients inside or travelling to or from a medical facility;
    2. from using violence against non-civilian medical staff inside or travelling to or from a medical facility; and
    3. from attempting to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation;
  5. Creates exceptions to the mandates of clause 4, where such action:

    1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian medical patients or staff, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only; or
    2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to achieve the strategical necessity. The use of violence against non-civilian medical patients or staff for the purposes of reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;
  6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel for combat, in which case member nations' military forces may damage the medical facility only while making a good-faith effort to do so to the smallest possible detriment of the medical staff or patients and while attempting to target only the production of weapons or training of military personnel.
Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict through GAR #121;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Also noting with approval that civilians are already protected from violence from member nations' military forces by GAR #317;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. a ‘medical patient’ as a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage;
    2. ‘medical staff’ as people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease;
    3. a ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated by medical staff;
  2. Requires member nations intending to carry out area bombardment to notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of the location of the planned area bombardment;

  3. Charges the IHACC with:

    1. documenting the locations of all medical facilities and their associated infrastructure in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared (this information may not be revealed to any person outside of the committee);
    2. notifying member nations whether the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
      1. only in the case that member nations' military forces must carry out an area bombardment in order to prevent significant harm to their own personnel or citizens may they do so without confirmation of permission from the IHACC, although should the IHACC notify the member nation intending to carry out an area bombardment that said bombardment would have a high chance of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure, the member nation's military forces may not carry out the area bombardment; otherwise,
      2. member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment on another member nation until the IHACC notifies them that the planned area bombardment does not have a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
    3. evaluating, objectively and methodically, whether member nations whose military forces carried out area bombardments acted in accordance with 3.b., and did so in good faith; should this not be the case, the IHACC must present any relevant evidence, with the conclusions drawn from such and the arguments used to arrive there, to the WACC;
    4. notifying the administrators of any medical facilities inside member nations at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aiding the evacuation of these medical facilities where it is sought;
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces:

    1. from using violence against non-civilian medical patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility;
    2. from using violence against non-civilian medical staff inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility; and
    3. from attempting to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation;
  5. Creates exceptions to the mandates of clause 4, where such action:

    1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian medical patients or staff, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only; or
    2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to achieve the strategical necessity. The use of violence against non-civilian medical patients or staff for the purposes of reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;
  6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities, their associated infrastructure, or their supplies, unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel for combat, in which case member nations' military forces may damage the medical facility only while making a good-faith effort to do so to the smallest possible detriment of the medical staff or patients and while attempting to target only the production of weapons or training of military personnel.
Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict through GAR #121;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Also noting with approval that civilians are already protected from violence from member nations' military forces by GAR #317;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. a ‘medical patient’ as a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage;
    2. ‘medical staff’ as people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease;
    3. a ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated by medical staff;
  2. Requires member nations intending to carry out area bombardment to notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of the location of the planned area bombardment;

  3. Charges the IHACC with:

    1. documenting the locations of all medical facilities and their associated infrastructure in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared (this information may not be revealed to any person outside of the committee);
    2. notifying member nations whether the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
      1. member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment within whose intended target area the member nation knows of the existence of a medical facility or its associated infrastructure; otherwise,
      2. only in the case that member nations' military forces must carry out an area bombardment in order to prevent significant harm to their own personnel or citizens may they do so without confirmation of permission from the IHACC, although should the IHACC notify the member nation intending to carry out an area bombardment that said bombardment would have a high chance of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure, the member nation's military forces may not carry out the area bombardment; otherwise,
      3. member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment on another member nation until the IHACC notifies them that the planned area bombardment does not have a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
    3. evaluating, objectively and methodically, whether member nations whose military forces carried out area bombardments acted in accordance with 3.b., and did so in good faith; should this not be the case, the IHACC must present any relevant evidence, with the conclusions drawn from such and the arguments used to arrive there, to the WACC;
    4. notifying the administrators of any medical facilities inside member nations at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aiding the evacuation of these medical facilities where it is sought;
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces:

    1. from using violence against non-civilian medical patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility;
    2. from using violence against non-civilian medical staff inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility; and
    3. from attempting to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation;
  5. Creates exceptions to the mandates of clause 4, where such action:

    1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian medical patients or staff, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only; or
    2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to achieve the strategical necessity. The use of violence against non-civilian medical patients or staff for the purposes of reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;
  6. Forbids member nations' military forces from changing medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation;

  7. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities, their associated infrastructure, or their supplies, unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel for combat, in which case member nations' military forces may damage the medical facility only while making a good-faith effort to do so to the smallest possible detriment of the medical staff or patients and while attempting to target only the production of weapons or training of military personnel.
Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict through GAR #121;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Also noting with approval that civilians are already protected from violence from member nations' military forces by GAR #317;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. a ‘patient’ as a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage;
    2. ‘non-combatant medical personnel’ as people:
      1. providing medical transportation or treatment, and
      2. unarmed or bearing light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care;
    3. a ‘medical facility’ as any site used for medical treatment, triage, or transport and bearing clearly visible markings indicating such;
    4. 'non-civilian' as in the employ of a nation's military forces;
  2. Requires member nations intending to carry out area bombardment to notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of the location of the planned area bombardment;

  3. Charges the IHACC with:

    1. documenting the locations of all medical facilities and their associated infrastructure in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared (this information may not be revealed to any person outside of the committee);
    2. notifying member nations whether the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
      1. member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment within whose intended target area the member nation knows of the existence of a medical facility or its associated infrastructure; otherwise,
      2. only in the case that member nations' military forces must carry out an area bombardment in order to prevent significant harm to their own personnel or citizens may they do so without confirmation of permission from the IHACC, although should the IHACC notify the member nation intending to carry out an area bombardment that said bombardment would have a high chance of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure, the member nation's military forces may not carry out the area bombardment; otherwise,
      3. member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment on another nation until the IHACC notifies them that the planned area bombardment does not have a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
    3. evaluating, objectively and methodically, whether member nations whose military forces carried out area bombardments acted in accordance with 3.b., and did so in good faith; should this not be the case, the IHACC must present any relevant evidence, with the conclusions drawn from such and the arguments used to arrive there, to the WACC;
    4. notifying the administrators of any medical facilities inside member nations at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aiding the evacuation of these medical facilities where such help is sought;
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces:

    1. from using violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such;
    2. from using violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such; and
    3. from attempting to access medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation;
  5. Creates exceptions to the mandates of clause 4, where such action:

    1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian patients or non-combatant medical personnel, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only; or
    2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to achieve the strategical necessity. The use of violence against non-civilian patients or non-combatant medical personnel for the purposes of reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;
  6. Forbids member nations' military forces from changing medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation;

  7. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities, their associated infrastructure, or their supplies, unless the medical facility is also being used for the advancement of military aims unrelated to medical treatment, triage, or transport, in which case member nations' military forces may damage the medical facility only while making a good-faith effort to do so to the smallest possible detriment of the patients and non-combatant medical personnel and while attempting to target only the actions advancing military aims unrelated to medical treatment, triage, or transport.
Wartime Healthcare Protections


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict through GAR #121;

Concerned that said protections are minimal and require new and more effective legislation on this area;

Disapproving of the perfidy inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Approving that civilians are already protected from violence from member nations' military forces by GAR #317;

Hereby enacts the following:

    1. A ‘patient’ is a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including physical injury and psychological damage.
    2. ‘Non-combatant medical personnel’ are those who provide medical transportation or treatment, who are either unarmed or bear light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care.
    3. A ‘medical facility’ is a site used for medical treatment, triage, or transport and bearing clearly visible markings indicating such.
    4. 'Non-civilian' is in the employ of a nation's military forces;
  1. Member nations intending to bombard an area must notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of the target area.

  2. The IHACC must:

    1. document the locations of all medical facilities and their associated infrastructure in conflict areas.
    2. maintain strict confidentiality of such information within the organization.
    3. advise member nations whether the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
      1. Member nations' military forces bombard areas if the member nation knows of a medical facility or its associated infrastructure within the target area.
      2. Only in the case that member nations' military forces must carry out an area bombardment in order to prevent significant harm to their own personnel or citizens may they do so without confirmation of permission from the IHACC.
      3. Notwithstanding the above, should the IHACC notify the member nation intending to carry out an area bombardment that said bombardment would have a high chance of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure, the member nation's military forces may not carry out the area bombardment.
      4. Otherwise, member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment on another nation until the IHACC notifies them that the planned area bombardment does not have a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
    4. objectively and methodically evaluate whether member nations whose military forces carried out area bombardments acted in accordance with 3.b., and did so in good faith. If not, the IHACC must present any relevant evidence, with the conclusions drawn from such and the arguments used to arrive there, to the World Assembly Compliance Commission as a violation of international law;
    5. notify the administrators of any medical facilities inside member nations at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aid the evacuation of these medical facilities where such help is sought.
  3. Member nations’ military forces may not:

    1. use violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
    2. use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
    3. attempt to access medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation.
  4. Notwithstanding the mandates of clause 4, where such action:

    1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian patients or non-combatant medical personnel, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only, or
    2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy,
    then member nations may use the minimum force possible to achieve the strategical necessity. Violence against non-civilian patients or non-combatant medical personnel for the purposes of reprisal is never a military necessity for member nations.

  5. Member nations' military forces may not change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation.

  6. Member nations’ military forces may not deliberately damage medical facilities, their associated infrastructure, or their supplies, unless the medical facility is also used for the advancement of military aims unrelated to medical treatment, triage, or transport, in which case member nations' military forces must make a good-faith effort to do so to the smallest possible detriment of the patients and non-combatant medical personnel and target only the actions advancing military aims unrelated to medical treatment, triage, or transport.
Last edited by Maowi on Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:06 am, edited 20 times in total.
Maowi


User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4977
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:13 pm

(OOC: 3b seems like an extremely large loophole, and I can’t see the reason for it being in the proposal.)
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
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:20 pm

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: 3b seems like an extremely large loophole, and I can’t see the reason for it being in the proposal.)


OOC: It's taken from GAR #317. I'm basically trying to extend 317's protections to non-civilian medical staff and patients as well as civilians. I don't think it makes sense for the WA to give the former more extensive protections than the latter - if anything my instinct would be to err the other way around.
Maowi


User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 315
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:20 pm

"Our critiques are in red, ambassador."
Maowi wrote:
Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. A ‘medical patient’ as a non-civilian person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage; Your use of "non-civilian" here concerns me, because it could prevent the protection of civilians who have sustained injuries either related or unrelated to the war from being protected.
    2. ‘Medical staff’ as non-civilian people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease;
    3. A ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated or in which medical staff treat injury or disease; Because of your definitions of 'medical staff' and 'medical patient,' this would notably exclude civilian hospitals and medical facilities.
  2. Charges the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee with documenting and making available to member nations the locations of all medical facilities in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared;
  3. Forbids member nations’ military forces from violently attacking medical patients inside medical facilities and from violently attacking medical staff inside medical facilities: Perhaps this is legislated on by other proposals (frankly, I haven't looked quite yet for those who may interact with this proposal, apart from GAR#121), and, in fact, I believe it is, but "inside medical facilities" would make it seem that it is legal to attack newly injured patients, as well as medics attending to these newly injured patients still on the battlefield.

    1. Unless in response to open aggression against them by medical patients or staff, in which case they may respond with equivalent force only;
    2. Except where such action is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy. The use of violence against medical patients or staff for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations; I know that, strictly speaking, this is protected by GAR#458, 'Command Responsibility,' but I feel that this subclause is just asking for trouble.
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case a sincere effort must be made to avoid harming medical patients and staff. Perhaps this is personal preference, but it seems strange to me to allow them to damage the medical facility itself, as opposed to infiltrating the medical facility and deal with the production machines / soldiers themselves.


"Overall, a very good proposal ambassador. It just needs a bit of work, and some of the issues we raise may have already been covered by other resolutions, anyways, but I figured all of this was worth mentioning."

EDIT:
Maowi wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: 3b seems like an extremely large loophole, and I can’t see the reason for it being in the proposal.)


OOC: It's taken from GAR #317. I'm basically trying to extend 317's protections to non-civilian medical staff and patients as well as civilians. I don't think it makes sense for the WA to give the former more extensive protections than the latter - if anything my instinct would be to err the other way around.

OOC: Yeah, okay, I thought the definitions of "non-civilians" was strange, but I guess I'll need to read up on GAR#317.
Last edited by Morover on Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:37 pm

Morover wrote:
  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. A ‘medical patient’ as a non-civilian person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage; Your use of "non-civilian" here concerns me, because it could prevent the protection of civilians who have sustained injuries either related or unrelated to the war from being protected.
    2. ‘Medical staff’ as non-civilian people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease;
    3. A ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated or in which medical staff treat injury or disease; Because of your definitions of 'medical staff' and 'medical patient,' this would notably exclude civilian hospitals and medical facilities.


'I believe your objections to parts a) and b) are resolved by GAR #317, which protects all civilians from violence from military forces. However, your point raised about part c) is valid and can be solved by removing the 'non-civilian' from the definitions above anyway, and then prefacing subsequent mentions of medical staff and patients with 'non-civilian' to avoid conflict with or duplication of GAR #317.

3. Forbids member nations’ military forces from violently attacking medical patients inside medical facilities and from violently attacking medical staff inside medical facilities: Perhaps this is legislated on by other proposals (frankly, I haven't looked quite yet for those who may interact with this proposal, apart from GAR#121), and, in fact, I believe it is, but "inside medical facilities" would make it seem that it is legal to attack newly injured patients, as well as medics attending to these newly injured patients still on the battlefield.


'I fear that, should the phrase 'inside medical facilities' be excluded, this legislation would essentially ban war, something I do not think it is the WA's place to do. I don't believe the WA should ban member nations' soldiers from firing repeatedly on their adversaries - this would mean that a soldier, having shot at another soldier but failed to kill them with the first shot, would not be permitted to attempt to finish them off, for want of a better phrase. I could perhaps add, after 'inside medical facilities', the phrase 'or being transported to a medical facility' and 'or travelling to a medical facility' respectively in order to attempt to cover more medical patients and staff?

b. Except where such action is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy. The use of violence against medical patients or staff for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations; I know that, strictly speaking, this is protected by GAR#458, 'Command Responsibility,' but I feel that this subclause is just asking for trouble.


'I would be open to removing this exception should there be significant concern over this. I will make an effort to look over related legislation to see how this clause interacts with it.'

4. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case a sincere effort must be made to avoid harming medical patients and staff. Perhaps this is personal preference, but it seems strange to me to allow them to damage the medical facility itself, as opposed to infiltrating the medical facility and deal with the production machines / soldiers themselves.


'In my mind, I was referring to the inevitable damage caused by a horde of soldiers rushing through the building but I see now that this allows more extensive damage. In the next draft I will work on your suggestion.

'Thank you for your feedback overall, ambassador.'
Maowi


User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14357
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:46 pm

Ooc: OP has license to use my work, revocable at discretion and with reasonable notice, for the purpose of this draft. I so authorize without consideration.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence and Chief Populist Elitist


User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2437
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby United Massachusetts » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:01 am

Protections for Medical Staff and Patients


Global Disarmament | Mild


The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval of the dishonesty and immorality inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Hereby:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

    1. A ‘medical patient’ as a non-civilian person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage; (Why are we specifying "non-civilian" here? It seems unneeded, unless I'm missing something.)
    2. ‘Medical staff’ as non-civilian people trained to treat one or more types of injury or disease; (same question as above)
    3. A ‘medical facility’ as a building or complex in which medical patients’ injuries or diseases are treated or in which medical staff treat injury or disease;
  2. Charges the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee with documenting and making available to member nations the locations of all medical facilities in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declared; (How do we prevent this documentation from falling in the hands of non-compliant member nations, to whom this documentation is already granted, or to non-members, who remain unbound by the legislation?)
  3. Forbids member nations’ military forces from violently attacking medical patients inside medical facilities and from violently attacking medical staff inside medical facilities: (Are cyber and other non-violent attacks on medical facilities permitted, then? If so, why?)

    1. Unless in response to open aggression against them by medical patients or staff, in which case they may respond with equivalent force only; (This isn't reasonable. Equivalent force shouldn't be the standard. Member nations should only be able to respond with the minimal amount of force needed to eliminate or minimize the threat. The idea of using "equivalent force" is retaliatory by nature.)
    2. Except where such action is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy. The use of violence against medical patients or staff for the purposes of coercion or reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations; (If patients in a hospital are blocking access to a nuclear bomb hidden in a hospital, shouldn't an army be able to coerce them into showing where the bomb is? See the issue?)
  4. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case a sincere effort must be made to avoid harming medical patients and staff.

"This draft needs some work, but is definitely a strong start."
United Massachusetts
World Assembly Mission

Pro-Life Social Democratic Catholic
Ambassador: Bishop Alexander Pierce

Deputy Outreach Minister, The Rejected Realms
Assistant: Father Carl Sullivan

President, Right to Life
Author/Co-author: 7 GA, 2 SC resolutions

Queen Yuno wrote:You have a very contradictory rep yourself, [UM].
Sanctaria wrote:We get it. You're pro-life.
Davelands wrote:(UM tries to slip another one by)
Wallenburg wrote:You've got to be the most ignorant person on this Discord.
Davelands wrote:Remember that United Mass is extremely on the religious right side. Look for hidden gotcha's for later. He is playing a long game with proposals...
Stat Crux dum volvitur orbis
The Cross stands steady, though the Earth is turning


User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:06 pm

'I've put up a new draft which I hope addresses the points brought up by the ambassadors from Morover and United Massachusetts. I dealt with the issue raised by the ambassador from UM regarding what was clause 2 in a rather long and contorted way but I believe it should solve the problem, although I am wondering whether a definition for area bombardment would be helpful. I am still unsure about what is now clause 6, and whether I should change 'unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel' to 'unless the medical facility is also being used by a member nation's military forces to advance its war effort', although that doesn't quite seem airtight either.

'I am unsure as to how to deal with clause 5. For the moment I have removed the prohibition of coercion as an exception, although I am not convinced that good faith compliance would prevent any exploitation here. I am considering entrusting the determination of what constitutes an absolute necessity by military strategy over to a committee of trusty gnomes, but I am doubtful of the efficiency and usefulness of such a method.

'I would be very grateful for help with any of the above.'

OOC:
United Massachusetts wrote:A ‘medical patient’ as a non-civilian person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including, but not limited to, physical injury and psychological damage; (Why are we specifying "non-civilian" here? It seems unneeded, unless I'm missing something.)

I have to be careful to avoid contradicting GAR #317, which already protects civilians.
Maowi


User avatar
Morover
Envoy
 
Posts: 315
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Morover » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:11 pm

"Clause two, as stands, seems rather unideal to me. Currently, it requires member nations to report all area bombardments to IHACC, which would include test bombardments and bombardments that are obviously not in danger of harming medical facilities. I like where the proposal is heading, though."

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:19 pm

Morover wrote:"Clause two, as stands, seems rather unideal to me. Currently, it requires member nations to report all area bombardments to IHACC, which would include test bombardments and bombardments that are obviously not in danger of harming medical facilities. I like where the proposal is heading, though."


'The dilemma, though, is that I am trying to remove member nations' ability to claim ignorance when bombarding medical facilities. Previously, I just had the IHACC publishing the locations of medical facilities, but as that could easily get into the wrong hands, as suggested by the ambassador from UM, I changed it to what I have now, which is that member nations must report planned area bombardments to the IHACC in order to find out whether medical facilities would be affected.'
Maowi


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8807
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:09 pm

Maowi wrote:'The dilemma, though, is that I am trying to remove member nations' ability to claim ignorance when bombarding medical facilities. Previously, I just had the IHACC publishing the locations of medical facilities, but as that could easily get into the wrong hands, as suggested by the ambassador from UM, I changed it to what I have now, which is that member nations must report planned area bombardments to the IHACC in order to find out whether medical facilities would be affected.'

Artillery bombardments are supposed to go through very quickly so that the infantry don't get slaughtered before it can drop. Would that not put WA military forces at a systematic disadvantage against non-WA militaries?

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:01 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Maowi wrote:'The dilemma, though, is that I am trying to remove member nations' ability to claim ignorance when bombarding medical facilities. Previously, I just had the IHACC publishing the locations of medical facilities, but as that could easily get into the wrong hands, as suggested by the ambassador from UM, I changed it to what I have now, which is that member nations must report planned area bombardments to the IHACC in order to find out whether medical facilities would be affected.'

Artillery bombardments are supposed to go through very quickly so that the infantry don't get slaughtered before it can drop. Would that not put WA military forces at a systematic disadvantage against non-WA militaries?


OOC: You're right, it would put them at a disadvantage. I suppose it's too much to assume gnomes can work at lightning-speed to get an almost immediate response back? (Although I guess if they have computers with locations of all the various medical facilities on them it could be pretty quick...but I'm probably devolving too far into my own imagination here)
Maowi


User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4977
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:04 am

Maowi wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Artillery bombardments are supposed to go through very quickly so that the infantry don't get slaughtered before it can drop. Would that not put WA military forces at a systematic disadvantage against non-WA militaries?


OOC: You're right, it would put them at a disadvantage. I suppose it's too much to assume gnomes can work at lightning-speed to get an almost immediate response back? (Although I guess if they have computers with locations of all the various medical facilities on them it could be pretty quick...but I'm probably devolving too far into my own imagination here)

(OOC: I think that would be too much to assume. Even if one allows for the possibility of gnomes doing this in 0 seconds, which is dubious anyway, there is still the delay of sending the message, it travelling from military command to the WAHQ, going back to the command, and then said military having to work out whether the message is genuine. That would be a massive disadvantage where time is of the essence.)
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
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:40 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Maowi wrote:OOC: You're right, it would put them at a disadvantage. I suppose it's too much to assume gnomes can work at lightning-speed to get an almost immediate response back? (Although I guess if they have computers with locations of all the various medical facilities on them it could be pretty quick...but I'm probably devolving too far into my own imagination here)

(OOC: I think that would be too much to assume. Even if one allows for the possibility of gnomes doing this in 0 seconds, which is dubious anyway, there is still the delay of sending the message, it travelling from military command to the WAHQ, going back to the command, and then said military having to work out whether the message is genuine. That would be a massive disadvantage where time is of the essence.)


OOC: Well, I'd be loth to allow for member nations' military forces bombarding medical facilities in non-member nations unintentionally, but I'm struggling to see a way around it that would not handicap member nations in war. Keeping the current mechanism for member nations attacking other member nations would still be fair though, I believe
Maowi


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8807
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:12 am

It can be one of the perks of WA membership.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:27 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:It can be one of the perks of WA membership.


OOC: Join the WA people!

I made the change as a new draft (for record keeping) and phrased it in such a way as to close a potential loophole where nations could notify the IHACC and bombard the area anyway before receiving a response. Don't know if I took it a little too far with the lists but I like to have it all organised :p

Maowi wrote:I am wondering whether a definition for area bombardment would be helpful. I am still unsure about what is now clause 6, and whether I should change 'unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel' to 'unless the medical facility is also being used by a member nation's military forces to advance its war effort', although that doesn't quite seem airtight either.

'I am unsure as to how to deal with clause 5. For the moment I have removed the prohibition of coercion as an exception, although I am not convinced that good faith compliance would prevent any exploitation here. I am considering entrusting the determination of what constitutes an absolute necessity by military strategy over to a committee of trusty gnomes, but I am doubtful of the efficiency and usefulness of such a method.'


^Any thoughts that come to mind regarding this are still very useful
Maowi


User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4977
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:57 am

“Clause 6 seems rather hard to guarantee, especially since you haven’t mentioned what the effect must be. For instance, if a hospital were diverting resources from healing people into weapons, and the weapon-facilities were destroyed, that would have an effect in the form of better healthcare for the patients. Therefore, it would be disallowed. Likewise, any military operation will cause noise, which could affect mental health patients.”
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
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13623
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:59 am

Kenmoria wrote:“Likewise, any military operation will cause noise, which could affect mental health patients.”

IC: "Not just mental health patients, all patients, and also staff, because it can be difficult or even impossible to concentrate or sleep. And sleep deprivation does bad things to the brain."

OOC: Speaking of which, I probably should stop pretending to be awake and just crawl off to bed... XD
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:17 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 6 seems rather hard to guarantee, especially since you haven’t mentioned what the effect must be. For instance, if a hospital were diverting resources from healing people into weapons, and the weapon-facilities were destroyed, that would have an effect in the form of better healthcare for the patients. Therefore, it would be disallowed. Likewise, any military operation will cause noise, which could affect mental health patients.”


Araraukar wrote:IC: "Not just mental health patients, all patients, and also staff, because it can be difficult or even impossible to concentrate or sleep. And sleep deprivation does bad things to the brain."


'Oh yes, I did miss that, thanks. Perhaps a better alternative could be the following?

"6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case member nations' military forces must make a good-faith effort to damage the medical facility to the detriment of the medical staff or patients as little as possible." '

OOC: Speaking of which, I probably should stop pretending to be awake and just crawl off to bed... XD

OOC: I swear you're always tired :p (me too though, to be honest)
Maowi


User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4977
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:19 pm

Maowi wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 6 seems rather hard to guarantee, especially since you haven’t mentioned what the effect must be. For instance, if a hospital were diverting resources from healing people into weapons, and the weapon-facilities were destroyed, that would have an effect in the form of better healthcare for the patients. Therefore, it would be disallowed. Likewise, any military operation will cause noise, which could affect mental health patients.”


Araraukar wrote:IC: "Not just mental health patients, all patients, and also staff, because it can be difficult or even impossible to concentrate or sleep. And sleep deprivation does bad things to the brain."


'Oh yes, I did miss that, thanks. Perhaps a better alternative could be the following?

"6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case member nations' military forces must make a good-faith effort to damage the medical facility to the detriment of the medical staff or patients as little as possible." '

(OOC: I suggest adding ‘while still achieving military aims’, or something similar, to the end of that clause. The way to cause as little damage as possible would be to just not attack, or fire a single arrow at the tank collection.)
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
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:34 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Maowi wrote:'Oh yes, I did miss that, thanks. Perhaps a better alternative could be the following?

"6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case member nations' military forces must make a good-faith effort to damage the medical facility to the detriment of the medical staff or patients as little as possible." '

(OOC: I suggest adding ‘while still achieving military aims’, or something similar, to the end of that clause. The way to cause as little damage as possible would be to just not attack, or fire a single arrow at the tank collection.)


OOC: Oh, I see your point. Maybe something like:

"6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel, in which case member nations' military forces may damage the medical facility only while making a good-faith effort to do so to the smallest possible detriment of the medical staff or patients and while attempting to target only the production of weapons or training of military personnel."

Maybe it's a little long and convoluted but I think it gets the job done...
Maowi


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13623
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:23 pm

Maowi wrote:"6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel

OOC: But what if the medical staff are also military personnell and they're being trained on medical stuff, like, say, treating crush injuries or any hands-on training that requires you to treat actual patients?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:30 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Maowi wrote:"6. Forbids member nations’ military forces from deliberately damaging medical facilities unless the medical facility is also being used for the production of weapons or for the training of military personnel

OOC: But what if the medical staff are also military personnell and they're being trained on medical stuff, like, say, treating crush injuries or any hands-on training that requires you to treat actual patients?


OOC: Thanks for pointing that out, I guess I can easily fix that by adding 'for the training of military personnel for combat'?

(Edit: typo)
Last edited by Maowi on Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maowi


User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4977
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:11 am

“In clause 4, you may wish to mention something about not killing medical patients that are leaving the hospital, so that a military can’t lie in wait outside a medical facility to kill those who have been cured.”
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
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 593
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:06 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 4, you may wish to mention something about not killing medical patients that are leaving the hospital, so that a military can’t lie in wait outside a medical facility to kill those who have been cured.”


OOC: Good point. At some point in the next few days I'll get around to putting up a new draft making sure to address this.
Maowi


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The New Bluestocking Homeland, The Sheika

Advertisement

Remove ads