NationStates

Bears Armed wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I believe this would fit better under civil rights, rather than international security.)

OOC: Civil Rights is definitely a better fit. For IS, you would have to explain how this would increase military spending -- a preamble clause something along the lines of 'Recognizes that limiting conscription might require increasing military pay noticeably in order to attract more voluntary recruits, or spending more on equipment and training in order to make those personnel that have been enlisted more effective," perhaps --and even then it would be arguable.

OOC: I had previously advised the author via Discord that Int. Sec. and not Civ. Rights was the correct category. I do see that the specific protections for conscripts, and for people who shouldn't be conscripted under any circumstances (accepting arguendo that conscription itself is acceptable), may justify a CR categorization. The strength cannot go beyond Mild, however - it would take an actual ban on conscription to justify more.

To the author: I would strongly advise a title upgrade. You could go for anything from "WA Conscription Regulations" to "Fair Military Draft Rules" to "Conscription Fairness Act" to "Military Compulsion Protocol." "On..." type titles are both denigrated in the GA and not particularly descriptive as to their actual effects. The more you can tell voters what you're doing before they've even read your first paragraph, the more likely they'll vote for your proposal.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:[-]

Thank you for your advice. I like the ring of "Conscription Fairness Act" and will rename the bill accordingly.

This proposal has been submitted.

(OOC: Why have you submitted this? It hasn’t been active for that long, and there is still a lot of feedback that can be given.)

Your lists aren't set up properly. I would recommend fixing it before submission.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Your lists aren't set up properly. I would recommend fixing it before submission.

Too late as of now, but which ones for future reference?

Preamble clauses end with commas. Enacting clauses and list introduction clauses end with colons. Operative clauses end with semi-colons. Lists inside operative clauses end with commas. The resolution itself ends with a full stop.

The word "and" should be introduced where grammatically required to make it a list (e.g. blah, blah, and blah).

Also, the bolding is totally unnecessary.

Inhorto wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Your lists aren't set up properly. I would recommend fixing it before submission.

Too late as of now, but which ones for future reference?

I would suggest just withdrawing it, at this rate it's not going to get anywhere near quorum.

OOC: Do the prohibiting clauses also prohibit those persons from voluntarily joining the military in times of strife? And yes I'm looking at the dependants one again. Though not necessarily just them.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do the prohibiting clauses also prohibit those persons from voluntarily joining the military in times of strife? And yes I'm looking at the dependants one again. Though not necessarily just them.

I think clause 7 is quite clear on this:

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not apply to those who have voluntarily enlisted into their national armed forces or militia(s).

OOC: In 4.b. you may wish to clarify that soldiers at sea must be released from involuntary service upon reaching native/friendly land.

Against. The Havenic government disagrees with conscription in all circumstances, and feels that a resolution prohibiting conscription would be more appropriate.

Maowi wrote:OOC: In 4.b. you may wish to clarify that soldiers at sea must be released from involuntary service upon reaching native/friendly land.

OOC
Even if that friendly land is a foreign country, and this release might leave the ship without the crew necessary for getting it back home?

Bears Armed wrote:

Maowi wrote:OOC: In 4.b. you may wish to clarify that soldiers at sea must be released from involuntary service upon reaching native/friendly land.

OOC
Even if that friendly land is a foreign country, and this release might leave the ship without the crew necessary for getting it back home?

OOC: OK, make that just home land ... I just wanted to bring to attention the fact that that clause was opening up a loophole for member nations to keep people in the army against their will indefinitely. The way it reads to me, it could be interpreted very literally as saying that if after four years the conscripted person is at sea and unable to reach safe land, they can be kept in the army for any lengthbof time after that.

“‘Members’ should be ‘member states’ or ‘member nations’, and there isn’t a need for capitalisation. Also, since this could happen in some states, you might want to expand the naval exception to a space exception as well.”

I withdrew the proposal.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Preamble clauses end with commas. Enacting clauses and list introduction clauses end with colons. Operative clauses end with semi-colons. Lists inside operative clauses end with commas. The resolution itself ends with a full stop.

The word "and" should be introduced where grammatically required to make it a list (e.g. blah, blah, and blah).

Also, the bolding is totally unnecessary.

I formatted most of my paper based on GAR 1. Resolutions from the UN seem to corroborate what you are saying, so I shall edit accordingly.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do the prohibiting clauses also prohibit those persons from voluntarily joining the military in times of strife? And yes I'm looking at the dependants one again. Though not necessarily just them.

No. Nothing in this resolution applies to persons who voluntarily enlist as per Clause 7. It is up to the nation to set its own laws on who can or cannot voluntarily enlist.

Maowi wrote:OOC: In 4.b. you may wish to clarify that soldiers at sea must be released from involuntary service upon reaching native/friendly land.

I will make it read native land as per your most recent comment.

Kenmoria wrote:“‘Members’ should be ‘member states’ or ‘member nations’, and there isn’t a need for capitalisation. Also, since this could happen in some states, you might want to expand the naval exception to a space exception as well.”

Separatist Peoples capitalized "Member(s)" in his edits. I thought this was odd, so I looked through UN resolutions and they capitalize "Members" as well.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Against. The Havenic government disagrees with conscription in all circumstances, and feels that a resolution prohibiting conscription would be more appropriate.

“I don’t like it, so Ban It! for everybody!” is such a quaint argument.

Inhorto wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do the prohibiting clauses also prohibit those persons from voluntarily joining the military in times of strife? And yes I'm looking at the dependants one again. Though not necessarily just them.

No. Nothing in this resolution applies to persons who voluntarily enlist as per Clause 7. It is up to the nation to set its own laws on who can or cannot voluntarily enlist.

OOC: Are you seriously trying to enable child soldiers?

How exactly are you connecting from "this proposal doesn't talk about who can or cannot voluntarily enlist" to "YOu RecRuIT ChILD SolDIeRs"? This is absurd. (1) The proposal doesn't talk about child soldiers, (2) it doesn't give authority to governments to create enlistment regulations, and (3) even if it did, giving a nation that authority isn't absolute and would not also magically contradict GA 4.

This exact sort of absurd contradiction claim came up after the conclusion of voting on Debtor Voting Rights. Somehow, people started conflating "debtors cannot be barred from voting by virtue of their debts" with "debtors cannot be barred from voting ever".

Araraukar wrote:

Inhorto wrote:No. Nothing in this resolution applies to persons who voluntarily enlist as per Clause 7. It is up to the nation to set its own laws on who can or cannot voluntarily enlist.

OOC: Are you seriously trying to enable child soldiers?

To reiterate what Imperium Anglorum has already said, nothing in THIS proposal applies to those who voluntarily enlist. All this means is that the proposal at hand does not comment on the issue. It is neither an endorsement for or a admonishment against; all it is saying is that the present statutes do not apply to a certain category, that's it. Furthermore, child soldiery is explicitly prohibited by GAR #4 (see highlighted section).

Shouldn't "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of a citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war" be "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war"?

Anyway, good issue. I really like it!

(It's kinda ironic that an issue with Conscription in the title has [DRAFT] in the thread name. )

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:Shouldn't "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of a citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war" be "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war"?

Anyway, good issue. I really like it!

(It's kinda ironic that an issue with Conscription in the title has [DRAFT] in the thread name. )

(That is kind of ironic )
On the grammatical note, I believe that the definite article must be complemented by another definite article, i.e. "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend the nation..."

Since we are speaking in general terms, I believe that the indefinite article works best here. If anyone else disagrees, I will change the wording.

Inhorto wrote:

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:Shouldn't "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of a citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war" be "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend its nation during peace and war"?

Anyway, good issue. I really like it!

(It's kinda ironic that an issue with Conscription in the title has [DRAFT] in the thread name. )

(That is kind of ironic )
On the grammatical note, I believe that the definite article must be complemented by another definite article, i.e. "RECOGNIZING the perdurable obligation of the citizenry to defend the nation..."

Since we are speaking in general terms, I believe that the indefinite article works best here. If anyone else disagrees, I will change the wording.

Ah, that makes more sense.

I tried 3 times to make that post work, and it kept exiting my page...

Imperium Anglorum wrote:How exactly are you connecting from "this proposal doesn't talk about who can or cannot voluntarily enlist" to "YOu RecRuIT ChILD SolDIeRs"? This is absurd.

OOC: And that's why I didn't actually say that. I asked if the author meant that this particular proposal doesn't mind you letting children enlist as soldiers voluntarily - if, say, for some reason the resolutions (workplace safety combined with the child labour ban and child abuse ones would likely be involved too) banning child soldiers were repealed?

(2) it doesn't give authority to governments to create enlistment regulations,

Except that's exactly what the author said it's supposed to do.

Perhaps you or author can tell me if clause 4 means that if the war lasts longer than 4 years, you can't have the soldiers/sailors serving for the duration of the war, but instead a completely arbitrarily decided 4 years?

Oh and does clause 5 ban "rehearsal drills"? I can't dig out the English term from my memory right now, but like, say you are conscripted right out of school, serve your time, go home, have a life, and when you turn 35, you're asked to come back for a couple of weeks to rehearse the skills you learned during your original year(s) of service. The point being that if a war does break out, your soldiering skills will be more up to date than as forgotten as what was the capital of Zaire (which, I know, doesn't exist under that name anymore).

OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?

Otherwise, this proposal is very interesting and, I think, non-partisan. Commendable.