Advertisement
by Maowi » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:14 pm
by Marxist Germany » Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:29 pm
by Kenmoria » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:35 am
by Maowi » Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:37 am
Marxist Germany wrote:"I strongly support this proposal and will be looking forward to working with the ambassador of Maowi to make improvements."
Kenmoria wrote:“Could you give examples of what it is for which 5b could be used? With examples, the clause should hopefully be able to be narrowed, as it is currently very broad.”
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;
is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity for the prevention of war crimes, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to prevent the war crime(s);
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:55 am
Maowi wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"I strongly support this proposal and will be looking forward to working with the ambassador of Maowi to make improvements."
'Thank you for your support, ambassador.'Kenmoria wrote:“Could you give examples of what it is for which 5b could be used? With examples, the clause should hopefully be able to be narrowed, as it is currently very broad.”
'I had been hoping that good faith compliance would be enough to ensure lack of abuse of this clause, but perhaps a committee could come in useful here?'
OOC: To give you an example, I think the situation UM hypothesised is a situation in which the use of violence would be necessary (to quote: '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?'). Or, for example, patients travelling from a hospital being used to shield poison gas cylinders. I think I could edit it to readis 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;
or evenis rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity for the prevention of war crimes, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to prevent the war crime(s);
Alternatively, I was considering entrusting such judgement to the IHACC, similarly to my clauses on area bombardment, but I am worried that in cases where there is a military necessity time would be of the essence and this would not be useful. So I'm not really sure what to do here, would anyone be able to give feedback on either of these options?
by Maowi » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:14 pm
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Both of your proposal replacements are better than what is here currently. I think don’t give too much work to the IHACC, since a member nation can do this by itself just fine.)
by Araraukar » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:53 pm
Maowi wrote:(I couldn't find any definition for war crimes in unrepealed GA legislation?).
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:49 am
by Maowi » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:42 pm
by Kenmoria » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:04 am
by Maowi » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:19 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Could 3bi be expanded to also cover infrastructure and supplies?”
by Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:58 am
News: BREAKING NEWS: Unceremoniously, USSR officially departs from the European Union 2 years before schedule
by Maowi » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:58 pm
Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:"The Soviet Union fully supports this resolution, and is looking forward to see it on the road to the WA."
by Maowi » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:49 am
by Araraukar » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:57 am
Maowi wrote:Should this be illegal for contradiction
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Maowi » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:59 am
by Kenmoria » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:31 am
Maowi wrote:Would using the minimum force necessary against military staff or patients to achieve an absolute strategical necessity constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure? I believe not, but I am far less certain regarding whether an attempt 'to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation' would constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure...
by Maowi » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:48 am
Kenmoria wrote:Maowi wrote:Would using the minimum force necessary against military staff or patients to achieve an absolute strategical necessity constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure? I believe not, but I am far less certain regarding whether an attempt 'to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation' would constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure...
(OOC: I believe that using force against medical patients would count as an intentional attack, regardless of the strategic necessity. Some people are having force used against them, and that should be enough, in my opinion, for counting as an attack. Accessing data, assuming it is not changed, does not harm the medical facility nor the patients thereof, so should be fine.)
by Kenmoria » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:52 am
Maowi wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I believe that using force against medical patients would count as an intentional attack, regardless of the strategic necessity. Some people are having force used against them, and that should be enough, in my opinion, for counting as an attack. Accessing data, assuming it is not changed, does not harm the medical facility nor the patients thereof, so should be fine.)
OOC: I was more confused regarding GAR #121's use of 'structure' in its definition of 'medical facility', which suggests to me that the physical building must be damaged in an air raid or something similar in order to be in violation of GAR #121. Which, come to think of it, makes me realise that clause 3.b. could be problematic - I need to specify in 3.b.i. that the area bombardment may not occur if the member nation itself is already aware of the presence of a medical facility in the area. That would prevent contradiction with GAR #121's definition of 'deliberate targeting' as an intentional raid, etc..
Also regarding the 'accessing data', I'll add in that under no circumstances may the data be changed and that should also avoid contradiction.
So the only thing I'm unsure of really regarding the legality is how literally the use of 'structure' in GAR #121 can be interpreted...
by Maowi » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:02 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Maowi wrote:OOC: I was more confused regarding GAR #121's use of 'structure' in its definition of 'medical facility', which suggests to me that the physical building must be damaged in an air raid or something similar in order to be in violation of GAR #121. Which, come to think of it, makes me realise that clause 3.b. could be problematic - I need to specify in 3.b.i. that the area bombardment may not occur if the member nation itself is already aware of the presence of a medical facility in the area. That would prevent contradiction with GAR #121's definition of 'deliberate targeting' as an intentional raid, etc..
Also regarding the 'accessing data', I'll add in that under no circumstances may the data be changed and that should also avoid contradiction.
So the only thing I'm unsure of really regarding the legality is how literally the use of 'structure' in GAR #121 can be interpreted...
(OOC: I see — it does depend on how literally the definition is interpreted. I’m tempted to say that the current proposal, once you’ve implemented the above changes, is legal because a legalistic interpretation of ‘structure’ is colourable, but I’ve been told that there are limits to how far a reasonable interpretation goes.
This is a case where the individual interpretation styles of the Gensec members will make a difference, so I agree that a trial run of this legislation will be useful.)
by Kenmoria » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:23 pm
Maowi wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I see — it does depend on how literally the definition is interpreted. I’m tempted to say that the current proposal, once you’ve implemented the above changes, is legal because a legalistic interpretation of ‘structure’ is colourable, but I’ve been told that there are limits to how far a reasonable interpretation goes.
This is a case where the individual interpretation styles of the Gensec members will make a difference, so I agree that a trial run of this legislation will be useful.)
OOC: I've put in the necessary changes. 3.b.i. has now grown extremely long but I think it's still legible?
Also, in case anybody asks, I put the data thing in a separate clause so as to avoid it being included in the exceptions of clause 5...
by Maowi » Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:40 am
Kenmoria wrote:Maowi wrote:OOC: I've put in the necessary changes. 3.b.i. has now grown extremely long but I think it's still legible?
Also, in case anybody asks, I put the data thing in a separate clause so as to avoid it being included in the exceptions of clause 5...
(OOC: Could you split 3bi into 3bi and 3bii, putting the current 3bii into 3biii?)
by Drystar » Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:59 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:17 am
Drystar wrote:I’m still trying to figure out non-civilian. Either you have non combatants and combatants, or civilian and military. And even those lines get blurred when non uniformed people engage in military actions against uniformed military personnel. Also, a wounded combatant is still lethal unless totally incapacitated by wounds and any military would be criminally negligent for not removing them by either capture or fatality.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement