[Abandoned] Ending All War Between Member States

[Umeria]

Global Disarmament | Strong

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that violent offensives are inherently unjust;

Affirming that one of the core tenets of this august body is to solve international disputes via non-violent means;

Distraught that member nations are engaged in armed attacks against fellow members;

Believing that none of this bloodshed would be necessary if we all just sat down together and worked out our differences over a nice hot cup of tea;

Committed to giving peace a chance;

Hereby

1) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "member-state war" as a war in which all involved parties are members of the World Assembly;

2) Mandates that member nations cease all involvement with any member-state wars they are currently in;

3) Prohibits member nations from initiating any new member-state wars;

4) Establishes the Committee for Not Killing Each Other (CNKEO);

5) Instructs the CNKEO to host and mediate civil discussions between representatives of member nations who hold grievances against each other that would otherwise result in a member-state war, and to help these member nations reach a peaceful resolution to said grievances;

6) Clarifies that providing medical aid to the wounded is not interpreted by this resolution to mean involvement in a war; and

7) Strongly urges member nations to seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts with nonmember nations as well.

[Honeydewistania]

Ha ha, very funny

[Umeria]

Before anyone asks how this will be enforced: all WA resolutions are enforced automatically. That's just how the system works.

Also I checked and this doesn't contradict GAR #2.

Ha ha, very funny

Care to elaborate?

[Tinhampton]

115% support

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Nations do not stop being enemies merely because they are members in the World Assembly. We will not give up strategic tools for the purpose of 'friendship' and 'community'."

[Umeria]

"Opposed. Nations do not stop being enemies merely because they are members in the World Assembly. We will not give up strategic tools for the purpose of 'friendship' and 'community'."

"Where in the proposal does it mandate you stop being enemies with them?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Nations do not stop being enemies merely because they are members in the World Assembly. We will not give up strategic tools for the purpose of 'friendship' and 'community'."

"Where in the proposal does it mandate you stop being enemies with them?"

"I didn't say that, ambassador. I said we will not give up strategic tools, with the obvious context being for use against those enemies. You are very aware of the point I am making, and it is not an obscure one. This bad faith approach does you no favors."

[Umeria]

"Where in the proposal does it mandate you stop being enemies with them?"

"I didn't say that, ambassador. I said we will not give up strategic tools, with the obvious context being for use against those enemies. You are very aware of the point I am making, and it is not an obscure one. This bad faith approach does you no favors."

"Your enemies will be giving up the tools as well, so there is no strategic loss."

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

"A naive attempt to serve peace, one that would ultimately lead to more wars on the horizon."

[Umeria]

"A naive attempt to serve peace, one that would ultimately lead to more wars on the horizon."

"How?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"I didn't say that, ambassador. I said we will not give up strategic tools, with the obvious context being for use against those enemies. You are very aware of the point I am making, and it is not an obscure one. This bad faith approach does you no favors."

"Your enemies will be giving up the tools as well, so there is no strategic loss."

"Untrue. Our enemies give up war, true. That does not deprive them of other tools. If our military options are stronger than our economic or diplomatic options to effect change, the military options are necessarily the best option for our self interest. If a foreign nation is engaged in intolerable nonmilitary activity, a military response may be our only tool. No, ambassador. Would that the world were all sugar plums and gumdrops, but it is not."

[Refuge Isle]

"It would be beneficial to not encourage World Assembly members to resign from the organisation for the purposes of having a war, but the be bound by the multitude of resolutions which dictate minimum standards for their conduct within one."

[Umeria]

"Your enemies will be giving up the tools as well, so there is no strategic loss."

"Untrue. Our enemies give up war, true. That does not deprive them of other tools. If our military options are stronger than our economic or diplomatic options to effect change, the military options are necessarily the best option for our self interest. If a foreign nation is engaged in intolerable nonmilitary activity, a military response may be our only tool. No, ambassador. Would that the world were all sugar plums and gumdrops, but it is not."

"Your military capabilities, unlike all other political tools, have no correlation with the morality of your position. If the other side has stronger 'diplomatic options to effect change', that usually means they have a more persuasive case. If you believe that your side is in the right, sway the international community in your favor instead of playing games with other people's lives."

"It would be beneficial to not encourage World Assembly members to resign from the organisation for the purposes of having a war, but the be bound by the multitude of resolutions which dictate minimum standards for their conduct within one."

"I am aware that a number of member nations are ardent warhawks, but I have decided against capitulating to their whims."

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

"A naive attempt to serve peace, one that would ultimately lead to more wars on the horizon."

"How?"

"Let's say two forces engage in conflict, both are member states, how does one stop them? Your proposal merely barks without any bite. There are no punishments for the violators. They can continue wars with impunity, without fear of retaliation from the WA." Explained the Ambassador.

The second MineLegoEquestrian Ambassador chimes in. "Additionally, this very treaty serves as a dangerous double edged sword. If a member goes to war with a member, and is intent on committing unspeakable crimes, who can stop them? The non-members? The very treaty stops others from intervening!"

[Umeria]

snip

Please read the following:

Before anyone asks how this will be enforced: all WA resolutions are enforced automatically. That's just how the system works.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Untrue. Our enemies give up war, true. That does not deprive them of other tools. If our military options are stronger than our economic or diplomatic options to effect change, the military options are necessarily the best option for our self interest. If a foreign nation is engaged in intolerable nonmilitary activity, a military response may be our only tool. No, ambassador. Would that the world were all sugar plums and gumdrops, but it is not."

"Your military capabilities, unlike all other political tools, have no correlation with the morality of your position. If the other side has stronger 'diplomatic options to effect change', that usually means they have a more persuasive case. If you believe that your side is in the right, sway the international community in your favor instead of playing games with other people's lives."

"Why on earth would any nation feel the need to give up a tool in their own self interest? If a foreign entity makes a more persuasive case, that means other nations have something to gain from it. That does very little for the victim of foreign antagonism.

"The best you've done is create a system where nations will resign as needed and engage in war unfettered by the legal restrictions on combat already in place, which is its own kind of problematic."

"I am aware that a number of member nations are ardent warhawks, but I have decided against capitulating to their whims."

"Since this is not legal, I suppose you may struggle on."

[Umeria]

"Why on earth would any nation feel the need to give up a tool in their own self interest? If a foreign entity makes a more persuasive case, that means other nations have something to gain from it. That does very little for the victim of foreign antagonism."

"You are assuming that all nations are cold, ruthless entities that will do anything to advance themselves at the expense of others. If that were the case, international humanitarian aid, among other things, would not exist. I do understand your point that a bloc of member nations might want to 'gang up' on another nation in the international stage. However, the exact same thing happens in armed conflicts, arguably to a greater extent."

"Since this is not legal, I suppose you may struggle on."

"I believe you misunderstood my statement. If this proposal fails at vote I will acknowledge that the majority of member nations hold different views than I do and move on. What I'm not going to do is give up before I've started."

OOC: Did you mean "not legal" in the sense that the proposal violates a GA rule? If so, which one?

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

snip

Please read the following:

Before anyone asks how this will be enforced: all WA resolutions are enforced automatically. That's just how the system works.

"There are still no punishments, meaning, we can still go on going to war. IF someone could explain how punishments are distributed, I would be more inclined to support this. Until then, we would continue to treat this proposal as something that merely barks with no bite to back it up."

[Separatist Peoples]

"You are assuming that all nations are cold, ruthless entities that will do anything to advance themselves at the expense of others.

"Most are. There are, of course, always odd ducks."

If that were the case, international humanitarian aid, among other things, would not exist.

"International humanitarian aid can absolutely be calculating and self-serving. International humanitarian aid provided to a population reduces that population's dependence on the local government apparatus, which can soften resistance to further intervention, military or diplomatic, at the expense of the local government's control. That you cannot see the benefits of the tools at your disposal is hardly my fault."

I do understand your point that a bloc of member nations might want to 'gang up' on another nation in the international stage. However, the exact same thing happens in armed conflicts, arguably to a greater extent."

"And by removing a tool to address this, you increasingly limit the dominated in favor of the dominator. All at the cost of World Assembly protections over innocent lives."

OOC: Did you mean "not legal" in the sense that the proposal violates a GA rule? If so, which one?

OOC: I mean it violates a GA rule.

[Honeydewistania]

Please read the following:

"There are still no punishments, meaning, we can still go on going to war. IF someone could explain how punishments are distributed, I would be more inclined to support this. Until then, we would continue to treat this proposal as something that merely barks with no bite to back it up."

"The Administrative Compliance Act already Lay’s our punishment for noncompliance."

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

"There are still no punishments, meaning, we can still go on going to war. IF someone could explain how punishments are distributed, I would be more inclined to support this. Until then, we would continue to treat this proposal as something that merely barks with no bite to back it up."

"The Administrative Compliance Act already Lay’s our punishment for noncompliance."

"Alright, thank you very much, I'll consult with this Act first before commenting further on this proposal,"

[Umeria]

"Most are. There are, of course, always odd ducks."

"I would argue that it is the cold-hearted ones who are odd ducks, and that most people find war abhorrent and to be avoided whenever possible."

"International humanitarian aid can absolutely be calculating and self-serving. International humanitarian aid provided to a population reduces that population's dependence on the local government apparatus, which can soften resistance to further intervention, military or diplomatic, at the expense of the local government's control."

"Agreed, there are different kinds of aid. Humanitarian assistance that strengthens the local infrastructure is present as well, however.

"And by removing a tool to address this, you increasingly limit the dominated in favor of the dominator. All at the cost of World Assembly protections over innocent lives."

"What if the dominator is the one with a stronger military, as is the case nearly every time?"

OOC: I mean it violates a GA rule.

OOC: Can you, um, explain?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Most are. There are, of course, always odd ducks."

"I would argue that it is the cold-hearted ones who are odd ducks, and that most people find war abhorrent and to be avoided whenever possible."

"You believe that to your disadvantage."

"Agreed, there are different kinds of aid. Humanitarian assistance that strengthens the local infrastructure is present as well, however.

"Yes, to forestall greater economic impact and prevent inroads from foreign influence. The tool can work both ways. In neither is it done out of pure charity. Merely the guise of charity."

"What if the dominator is the one with a stronger military, as is the case nearly every time?"

"I see little evidence that they would be. In any case, incentivizing membership would hardly be of benefit."

[New Swaraelia]

"To prohibit war would be preposterous and the most pacifist among us surely understands on some pragmatic level the impossibility and impracticality of such an arrangement, no?"

[Umeria]

"You believe that to your disadvantage."

"It's worked out so far."

"Yes, to forestall greater economic impact and prevent inroads from foreign influence. The tool can work both ways. In neither is it done out of pure charity. Merely the guise of charity."

"Why would the guise of charity be needed if everyone was a ruthless bastard deep down? People would just acknowledge that it's all part of the global chess game and accept whatever cruelties arise, would they not?"

"I see little evidence that they would be."

"If a nation dominates another in one aspect, they are likely to be dominant in others as well. It is quite unreasonable to assume that the party with a weaker military is the oppressor."

"In any case, incentivizing membership would hardly be of benefit."

"We will not accomplish anything if we fear those who disagree with us."