Kenmoria wrote: (OOC: The reason I mentioned this is because it is illegal to attempt to legislate on non-member nations, even though it is logically impossible to affect them. Referring to ‘nations’ in some clauses and ‘member nations’ in others has historically made proposals illegal for metagaming.)
Legislation with non-binding incentives-based effects on non-members is not new. It was done in Meteorological Cooperation. Ransium and I did it in Greenhouse Cap and Trade.
(OOC: I fully agree that non-binding incentives are a good idea, and I would like to see them used more often. However, ‘Requires that every nation ... ’ is not non-binding, and looks as though it tries to affect directly nonmembers.)
Youssath wrote:You need to stop commenting on everything in this thread if you don't want angered responses in here. The people here are extremely liberal here in this assembly and won't hesitate to devour anything that opposes them.
Then they shall choke on my bones.
"Ambassador, can you stop causing troubles within this room? I don't want to have to get the security to drag you out."
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:59 am
by Jakker
Ard al Islam wrote:Aye. Any chance to add Islamic Law to NationStates.
Ard al Islam wrote:He is a diplomat. Look at the words below his flag. And Islamic Law belongs everywhere.
This thread is not about Islamic Law, therefore its discussion does not belong here. Do not try to bring up topics that do not relate directly to the OP. Unofficial warning for Threadjacking.
Ard al Islam wrote:Aye. Any chance to add Islamic Law to NationStates.
Ard al Islam wrote:He is a diplomat. Look at the words below his flag. And Islamic Law belongs everywhere.
This thread is not about Islamic Law, therefore its discussion does not belong here. Do not try to bring up topics that do not relate directly to the OP. Unofficial warning for Threadjacking.
I'll admit that was threadjacking, but I'll point out that my original statement is completely fine by every mean. I merely stated my support for a draft and provided my explanation, then explained that it is possible for a secular organization to have a law that is similar to a religious one(duh).
And I 100% stand by the fact that Islamic Law belongs everywhere.
Yeah right, about two-thirds of your "meaningful input" has been about bashing those who don't agree or conform with your views.
About zero-thirds of your statement are correct.
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:40 pm
by Kenmoria
“Clause 5 seems overly broad, since the aid does not have to directly help the war effort to be prohibited. Kenmoria currently is sending aid to several less economically developed countries to help stop child mortality, and we shouldn’t have to stop because a government declared an unjustified war. I suggest requiring the cessation of aid only where the aid directly helps the war.”
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:46 pm
by Ard al Islam
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 5 seems overly broad, since the aid does not have to directly help the war effort to be prohibited. Kenmoria currently is sending aid to several less economically developed countries to help stop child mortality, and we shouldn’t have to stop because a government declared an unjustified war. I suggest requiring the cessation of aid only where the aid directly helps the war.”
I agree. Innocent civilians must never have to suffer.
Youssath wrote:Yeah right, about two-thirds of your "meaningful input" has been about bashing those who don't agree or conform with your views.
About zero-thirds of your statement are correct.
OOC: I'm more than half convinced that you're just a troll, trying to pretend to be as obnoxious as possible so as to make Islamistic nations look bad. EDIT: And I'm done continuing the threadjack by replying to you anymore.
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 5 seems overly broad, since the aid does not have to directly help the war effort to be prohibited. Kenmoria currently is sending aid to several less economically developed countries to help stop child mortality, and we shouldn’t have to stop because a government declared an unjustified war. I suggest requiring the cessation of aid only where the aid directly helps the war.”
"Mind you, it does say "except as expressly required by other international law". There are plenty of resolutions - and presumably your planet has non-WA-related international treaties with the force of law as well - that require WA nations to provide help, but which most nations seem all too happy to conveniently forget about. If your aid fits that, as I would imagine, if it really is humanitarian help, then you should be fine with your projects anyway."
Ard al Islam wrote:About zero-thirds of your statement are correct.
OOC: I'm more than half convinced that you're just a troll, trying to pretend to be as obnoxious as possible so as to make Islamistic nations look bad.
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 5 seems overly broad, since the aid does not have to directly help the war effort to be prohibited. Kenmoria currently is sending aid to several less economically developed countries to help stop child mortality, and we shouldn’t have to stop because a government declared an unjustified war. I suggest requiring the cessation of aid only where the aid directly helps the war.”
"Mind you, it does say "except as expressly required by other international law". There are plenty of resolutions - and presumably your planet has non-WA-related international treaties with the force of law as well - that require WA nations to provide help, but which most nations seem all too happy to conveniently forget about. If your aid fits that, as I would imagine, if it really is humanitarian help, then you should be fine with your projects anyway."
I am not a troll. I am not even being obnoxious, and I am not making Islamic nations look bad. In fact, I would say I'm doing the opposite.
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:42 am
by Kenmoria
Araraukar wrote:"Mind you, it does say "except as expressly required by other international law". There are plenty of resolutions - and presumably your planet has non-WA-related international treaties with the force of law as well - that require WA nations to provide help, but which most nations seem all too happy to conveniently forget about. If your aid fits that, as I would imagine, if it really is humanitarian help, then you should be fine with your projects anyway."
“I forgot that international law doesn’t always mean GA law. That makes clause 5 actually rather weak, since two nations could develop a treaty to support via missile shipments a warring nation not following this resolution. The author may wish to fix this, but for now my concerns have been abated.”
Araraukar wrote:"Mind you, it does say "except as expressly required by other international law". There are plenty of resolutions - and presumably your planet has non-WA-related international treaties with the force of law as well - that require WA nations to provide help, but which most nations seem all too happy to conveniently forget about. If your aid fits that, as I would imagine, if it really is humanitarian help, then you should be fine with your projects anyway."
“I forgot that international law doesn’t always mean GA law. That makes clause 5 actually rather weak, since two nations could develop a treaty to support via missile shipments a warring nation not following this resolution. The author may wish to fix this, but for now my concerns have been abated.”
"It could perhaps try to tag on the "previously existing" clause, but that is getting ignored in the one currently at vote, so I'm not sure how good a choice that would be."
Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild
The General Assembly:
Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any Nationstate;
Convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a Nationstate so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions;
Further convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member states to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war;
Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:
1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation.
2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action;
3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community;
4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter;
5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law.
Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild
The General Assembly:
Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any nation;
Convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a nation so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions;
Further convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member nations to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war;
Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:
1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official or accountable government body legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation.
2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action;
3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community;
4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter;
5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law.
Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild
The General Assembly:
Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any nation;
Convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member nations to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war;
Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:
1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official or accountable body legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation.
2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary nation before commencing hostilities or military action against that nation;
3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community;
4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter;
5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law.
I think this should apply to member nations who want to fight with other member nations or non-member nations. States should always declare war before taking military action. For the first clause, it seems that it is worded a little weirdly. I take it to mean every member must have an official individual or body to declare war, enshrined by law? Sure. My nation already has a law stating the Emir has the sole authority to declare war.
I support the third, if by that you mean a nation must make known why they're declaring war.
And for the 5th, I think members oughtta be able to provide humanitarian aid to any state.
Other than that, aye.
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:55 am
by Tinfect
Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild
The General Assembly:
Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any nation;
Convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member nations to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war;
Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:
1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official or accountable body legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation.
2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary nation before commencing hostilities or military action against that nation;
3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community;
4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter;
5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law.
Elesvanir Marsev, Diplomatic Overseer of the Imperium, and man in a particularly ratty coat, tapped his copy of the draft for effect, resulting in the draft limply falling forward and immediately dispelling any intended dramatic effect. He began speaking regardless.
"This mandate, that requires the declaration of hostilities, far from resulting in any greater 'legitimacy' or, shall we say, 'honor', in warfare, will serve solely to the detriment of national populations; it eliminates the possibility of immediate, decapitating strikes, which may resolve conflicts quite immediately. It requires Member-States to issue a full declaration of war following something as utterly trivial and mundane as a border skirmish. It promotes, and requires war in countless circumstance, including accident, mistaken identity, failed diplomatic overtures. The Imperium opposes this legislation, entirely and permanently. There is no avenue by which it may be made acceptable, and we recommend it be consigned to oblivion before it causes genuine harm."
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:53 am
by Giant Bats
Ikiti Tikilikrr, an entity perhaps best described as a cross between a carnivorous bat with a 6 metre wingspan, great white shark and a bird of prey knew that her perch was being moved around the debate rooms by someone else but her and her affiliates, but didn't have any preference over one spot or another, so she wasn't very surprised when she found her glide from the window this time ending next to the half-artificial human animal from the place they called Tinfect. The human was known to her from before, so she strained her vocal chords to be able to produce one of her native words in low enough frequency to be audible for it: "Kah." It was a greeting and a question and reply to do with one's well-being all at the same time.
She then turned her attention to the draft at hand, and when she next spoke, it was not a voice of her own but rather that of the entity that also did the translations for her.
"The proposal has the member nations "enact" things, instead of the World Assembly. How is that meant to happen? The nations do not have the power to force one another to comply, while the World Assembly does. Member nations are also told to make every nation follow the dictates, rather than the World Assembly telling the member nations to follow the dictates, and that grossly oversteps the Assembly's legitimate reach.
"I agree with the Tinfectian human animal in that random accidental forays into occupied space being dealt with harshly should not be considered an act of war." She made a gesture towards Marsev - also known to others as Markhov - as though he was Exhibit A. "If they sent a ship to one of our solar systems not knowing it was ours, and we attacked it to destroy it, as we do to warships who have no right to be in our territory, it shooting back at our ships," she flicked her ears back briefly in amusement, "for the few seconds that they still could, should not make the other member nations demand that they then declare war on us, nor us on them. Why should they? The Tinfectians will have lost but one ship, and that is a small price to pay for learning what space is not theirs to travel in. We have no need to attack anyone who remains respectful of our borders. Why does the World Assembly desire wars over such petty little things?"
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:21 am
by Ard al Islam
I'd like to hear the opinion of anyone opposed to this draft.
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:10 am
by Tinfect
Ard al Islam wrote:I'd like to hear the opinion of anyone opposed to this draft.
I meant that I'd like to hear a good argument against this draft.
"Requiring unnecessary formalities for comparatively low intensity conflicts is absurd, and a good argument against the draft as written, ambassador. A declaration of war over a skirmish escalates the skirmish."
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:48 am
by Losthaven
Tinfect wrote:This mandate * * * eliminates the possibility of immediate, decapitating strikes, which may resolve conflicts quite immediately.
Well, we had hoped that the exception clause allowing a member nation to take "any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities" would sufficiently address this concern about immediate, decapitating strikes by allowing members to take such action so long as a justification is provided as soon as possible thereafter. While that would have the unfortunate effect (from our point of view) of failing to address some unjustifiable acts or aggression before they occur, it would allow member nations to at least re-view their cooperation with such actors after the fact, and felt an appropriate balance with what we agree is a compelling interest in nations to respond swiftly when appropriate.
If the exception isn't sufficient for Tinfect, we agree with your principle that such actions should be permitted and would happily invite your suggestions on what exception language might better insulate the ability to make immediate, decapitating strikes while also serving the aim of the act of requiring justification for military violence (either before, or as near as practicable after it has been employed).
Tinfect wrote:It requires Member-States to issue a full declaration of war following something as utterly trivial and mundane as a border skirmish. It promotes, and requires war in countless circumstance, including accident, mistaken identity, failed diplomatic overtures.
We are not sure how you mean that this law requires (your emphasis) war in the case of "mistaken identity" but no matter. We agree that the present draft unreasonably conflates "hostilities" and "war" in a way that causes confusion and suggests that members must make protracted military commitments any time they wish to employ military force - which certainly was not the aim of the act. We are 100% open to changing the draft to address this and would appreciate your suggestions on how to do so properly, from your point of view.
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:12 am
by Araraukar
OOC: Would UN-esque peacekeeping count as "military action"? I mean, WA can't mandate such activities anyway, but that doesn't mean WA nations might not be involved with such on their own planet with other nations, whether WA or not. Like, does "having your military units in another's territory" count as military action?
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:01 am
by Bears Armed
Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary nation before commencing hostilities or military action against that nation;
OOC But that's only for hostilities or military action against the actual nation, so that actions against non-state actors who are using that nation as a base for their attacks on you – with or without its government's approval – would still be allowed without a declaration... Right? Otherwise I think that you would you need to change the "except as otherwise provided in this resolution," to something along the lines of "except as otherwise provided in this resolution or by an earlier GA Resolution that is still in force," to avoid illegality for contradicting (or maybe it would be considered trying to amend) GAR #20 'Suppress International Piracy', clause 5. Among other things, that legislation “Urges and authorises all WA member nations” to attack international pirates’ bases wherever those are located and it doesn’t say anything about actually having to declare war on the nations in which any of those are located. (If I was writing the proposal which became that resolution now, with the longer length available, I'd probably have included a bit in that clause about working with the "host nation" where that was feasible, to allow for cases where their own failure to suppress those pirates was due to inability rather than actual support for the piracy ... but, at the time, there wasn't enough room.)
Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:42 am
by Fecaw
I suggest that you include a definition of hostilities or military action. 5. What is meant by "comfort"? I would drop this and only leave "assistance"
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:43 pm