NationStates

Title is not set in stone. Scope changed following discussion with Sep on Discord.

The World Assembly,

Seeking to end the withholding of the death details of prisoners of war (POWs), and to establish a means of mediating prisoner exchanges,

Hereby;

1. Defines prisoner of war (herein POW) as a combatant member of a military organization (who has not violated international law) that is detained because of their status as such, and defines POW exchange as multiple military organizations releasing living POWs to the organization for which they served,
2. Requires that military organizations holding POWs record (by name, if possible) the details of the deaths of any POWs they hold, and release these details to the military organization for which the POW served as soon as it is safe to do so,
3. Prohibits member nations from engaging in armed conflict during a World Assembly sanctioned POW exchange,
4. Establishes the Convention of POW Exchanges (CPE) and tasks it with the following:
   
   1. Mediating POW exchanges between member nations at the unanimous request of all involved nations,
   2. Finding neutral territory to carry out individual POW exchanges and,
   3. Ensuring that any and all terms agreed upon between the nations involved in the exchange are upheld.

Fixed broken tags.

OOC: Why is the "without violating international law" there? What is a POW who was somehow unlawfully detained? If they're still treated as a POW by those who captured them?

IC: "Do you understand that a person whose status of being alive is unknown is that exactly because nobody knows if they are dead or alive? How can any details of their deaths be reported when you don't know if they're dead or not? The WA can demand all it wants, and the nation's still going to be unable to comply, what with not actually having the information to begin with."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Why is the "without violating international law" there? What is a POW who was somehow unlawfully detained? If they're still treated as a POW by those who captured them?

IC: "Do you understand that a person whose status of being alive is unknown is that exactly because nobody knows if they are dead or alive? How can any details of their deaths be reported when you don't know if they're dead or not? The WA can demand all it wants, and the nation's still going to be unable to comply, what with not actually having the information to begin with."

OOC: That's because of war criminals being detained as opposed to capturing enemy forces for leverage in a war.
IC: "Yes, I do, in fact understand that. Are you aware that some nations do know of the deaths of those reported MIA, but refuse to report the deaths because it makes them look bad? Also, if there is no death to report, member nations are not required to report a death."

Jedinsto wrote:Are you aware that some nations refuse do know of the deaths of those reported MIA, because it makes them look bad?

OOC: I don't understand this sentence. I think there's a typo or a mental fart that changes its meaning.

Araraukar wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Are you aware that some nations refuse do know of the deaths of those reported MIA, because it makes them look bad?

OOC: I don't understand this sentence. I think there's a typo or a mental fart that changes its meaning.

Perhaps "Are you aware that some nations refuse do know of the do not report deaths of those reported MIA, because it makes them look bad?". That said, if they didn't report MIA with presumption of death within, say, seven years, it would prove difficult to deal with property owned by a person who really may as well be dead but cannot exercise any custodial rights over that property. In the alternative, someone might still be walking around as if John Kipling were still alive or something.

Araraukar wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Are you aware that some nations refuse do know of the deaths of those reported MIA, because it makes them look bad?

OOC: I don't understand this sentence. I think there's a typo or a mental fart that changes its meaning.

I seem to have died mid-sentence. Fixed.

Full support! As almost all of our nation in its entirety are active service veterans, we would like to offer this resolution our full support in each and every single form, including donations to the ambassadors who worked on it. As an ambassador, I am obligated to offer you, especially, this fruit bowl and a “thank you” card from... Oops, I won’t be reading his one even if they’ll rip my head clean off for not doing it. Not in the slightest, no...

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:

Full support! As almost all of our nation in its entirety are active service veterans, we would like to offer this resolution our full support in each and every single form, including donations to the ambassadors who worked on it. As an ambassador, I am obligated to offer you, especially, this fruit bowl and a “thank you” card from Waffen SS Oberführer Heilgard Von Streckenbach-Kupner. I myself understand your opinion of SS and nazis as a whole and somewhat share it. I mean, if you reject it that means I get to keep the fruit bowl for myself...

^ How to never pass a resolution ever. Or in other terms: How to destroy your interregional reputation in one post.

"Thanks for your support, ambassador!"
Ambassador DuBois runs from the building at top speed.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:

Full support! As almost all of our nation in its entirety are active service veterans, we would like to offer this resolution our full support in each and every single form, including donations to the ambassadors who worked on it. As an ambassador, I am obligated to offer you, especially, this fruit bowl and a “thank you” card from Waffen SS Oberführer Heilgard Von Streckenbach-Kupner. I myself understand your opinion of SS and nazis as a whole and somewhat share it. I mean, if you reject it that means I get to keep the fruit bowl for myself...

^ How to never pass a resolution ever. Or in other terms: How to destroy your interregional reputation in one post.

OOC: Waffen SS are basically hated by everyone and are essentially just a remnant of what a real Waffen SS were. They aren’t a gov organization. They aren’t even anti Semitic... Basically they’re a bunch of national populists who take “we like the aesthetics but not the Nazi part to extreme, hell, their leader is half-Jewish.

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:^ How to never pass a resolution ever. Or in other terms: How to destroy your interregional reputation in one post.

OOC: Waffen SS are basically hated by everyone and are essentially just a remnant of what a real Waffen SS were. They aren’t a gov organization. They aren’t even anti Semitic... Basically they’re a bunch of national populists who take “we like the aesthetics but not the Nazi part to extreme, hell, their leader is half-Jewish.

Ooc: I don't think players can reasonably protest against anti nazi backlash when one coopts their names and imagery with a transparent post hoc justification of 'but not racist'.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: Waffen SS are basically hated by everyone and are essentially just a remnant of what a real Waffen SS were. They aren’t a gov organization. They aren’t even anti Semitic... Basically they’re a bunch of national populists who take “we like the aesthetics but not the Nazi part to extreme, hell, their leader is half-Jewish.

Ooc: I don't think players can reasonably protest against anti nazi backlash when one coopts their names and imagery with a transparent post hoc justification of 'but not racist'.

OOC: Ok, just ignore it than. I still sometimes have trouble understanding what is OK and not OK to RP in a this forum, like, some sort of RP etiquette and other. I’ll remove the Waffen SS part. Sorry.

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: I don't think players can reasonably protest against anti nazi backlash when one coopts their names and imagery with a transparent post hoc justification of 'but not racist'.

OOC: Ok, just ignore it than. I still sometimes have trouble understanding what is OK and not OK to RP in a this forum, like, some sort of RP etiquette and other. I’ll remove the Waffen SS part. Sorry.

Ooc: nothing about it is against the rules. I'm just not sure you can post that when there is such an anti nazi sentiment and be surprised when people think you're a nazi.

Jedinsto wrote:IC: "Yes, I do, in fact understand that. Are you aware that some nations do know of the deaths of those reported MIA, but refuse to report the deaths because it makes them look bad? Also, if there is no death to report, member nations are not required to report a death."

IC: "You're making no sense. You say that if there's no death to report, then a death is not required to be reported, but then you also say that some nations don't report deaths of MIA - which you define as someone missing whose death is unknown or uncertain - and that that is a problem? Which is it? Are the persons missing with their death or life unknown, or are they dead? If they are dead, then they are not, I'm told, "MIA" but "DIA" instead. Your proposal would make a lot more sense if you required nations to update MIA status into DIA, if the death is confirmed later."

OOC: As for someone being "MIA but we assume they're dead because the war has been over for decades and we haven't heard anything from them", isn't declaring them dead without actual proof of death the job of a civil court? At least that's what happens with plane crashes where none or not all of the bodies are found. (I watch a lot of Aircrash Investigations.)

Araraukar wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:IC: "Yes, I do, in fact understand that. Are you aware that some nations do know of the deaths of those reported MIA, but refuse to report the deaths because it makes them look bad? Also, if there is no death to report, member nations are not required to report a death."

IC: "You're making no sense. You say that if there's no death to report, then a death is not required to be reported, but then you also say that some nations don't report deaths of MIA - which you define as someone missing whose death is unknown or uncertain - and that that is a problem? Which is it? Are the persons missing with their death or life unknown, or are they dead? If they are dead, then they are not, I'm told, "MIA" but "DIA" instead. Your proposal would make a lot more sense if you required nations to update MIA status into DIA, if the death is confirmed later."

OOC: As for someone being "MIA but we assume they're dead because the war has been over for decades and we haven't heard anything from them", isn't declaring them dead without actual proof of death the job of a civil court? At least that's what happens with plane crashes where none or not all of the bodies are found. (I watch a lot of Aircrash Investigations.)

Ooc: not if it's a military jurisdiction regarding military benefits. Civil courts generally address the civil side.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: not if it's a military jurisdiction regarding military benefits. Civil courts generally address the civil side.

OOC: The proposal doesn't say anything about any benefits, though?

Surely in Finland even they provide pensions for war widows.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Surely in Finland even they provide pensions for war widows.

OOC: ...actually wouldn't know without checking, nor is it necessarily necessary, but that's still besides the point that defining "MIA" as someone that has not been found to be dead or alive and then requiring the details of their death to be reported doesn't make any sense. Requiring updating the status from MIA to DIA if their dead body is found (or a big crater is found where they were last seen) would make more sense.

In other words, if the person was confirmed dead, then they would no longer be MIA (as defined), so you can't provide details of a MIA person's death, as doing so makes them non-MIA.

Unrelated to that problem, there's another:

Let's say Nation A and Nation B are at war.

Soldier C is from Nation A but fighting a war on Nation B's territory. There's a kerfuffle at night in a thick conifer forest between soldiers from both nations, and afterwards Soldier C's fellow soldiers notice he didn't come back from the forest and nobody knows what happened to him. They try to look for him, but can't find him before needing to pull back from the area, and his unit commander registers him as MIA.

Following day Nation B's troops comb the area for any dead or wounded. They find Soldier C's body along with the bodies of others who died in the kerfuffle. They bury him along with the others.

Now, the problem: How would Nation B know that Nation A has recorded Soldier C as MIA instead of DIA?

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: not if it's a military jurisdiction regarding military benefits. Civil courts generally address the civil side.

OOC: The proposal doesn't say anything about any benefits, though?

Ooc: thought this was a general question, not a resolution specific question.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: The proposal doesn't say anything about any benefits, though?

Ooc: thought this was a general question, not a resolution specific question.

OOC: Was both, really. Thank you for answer.

Araraukar wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:IC: "Yes, I do, in fact understand that. Are you aware that some nations do know of the deaths of those reported MIA, but refuse to report the deaths because it makes them look bad? Also, if there is no death to report, member nations are not required to report a death."

IC: "You're making no sense. You say that if there's no death to report, then a death is not required to be reported, but then you also say that some nations don't report deaths of MIA - which you define as someone missing whose death is unknown or uncertain - and that that is a problem? Which is it? Are the persons missing with their death or life unknown, or are they dead? If they are dead, then they are not, I'm told, "MIA" but "DIA" instead. Your proposal would make a lot more sense if you required nations to update MIA status into DIA, if the death is confirmed later."

OOC: As for someone being "MIA but we assume they're dead because the war has been over for decades and we haven't heard anything from them", isn't declaring them dead without actual proof of death the job of a civil court? At least that's what happens with plane crashes where none or not all of the bodies are found. (I watch a lot of Aircrash Investigations.)

"My proposal defines an MIA as someone who has not been confirmed dead or alive by their own organization. They are considered missing in action because the opposing forces won't tell them if they died and if so where and how they died."

Araraukar wrote:snip

Good point. Will be addressed momentarily.

Updated.

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Surely in Finland even they provide pensions for war widows.

OOC: ...actually wouldn't know without checking, nor is it necessarily necessary, but that's still besides the point that defining "MIA" as someone that has not been found to be dead or alive and then requiring the details of their death to be reported doesn't make any sense. Requiring updating the status from MIA to DIA if their dead body is found (or a big crater is found where they were last seen) would make more sense.

In other words, if the person was confirmed dead, then they would no longer be MIA (as defined), so you can't provide details of a MIA person's death, as doing so makes them non-MIA.

Unrelated to that problem, there's another:

Let's say Nation A and Nation B are at war.

Soldier C is from Nation A but fighting a war on Nation B's territory. There's a kerfuffle at night in a thick conifer forest between soldiers from both nations, and afterwards Soldier C's fellow soldiers notice he didn't come back from the forest and nobody knows what happened to him. They try to look for him, but can't find him before needing to pull back from the area, and his unit commander registers him as MIA.

Following day Nation B's troops comb the area for any dead or wounded. They find Soldier C's body along with the bodies of others who died in the kerfuffle. They bury him along with the others.

Now, the problem: How would Nation B know that Nation A has recorded Soldier C as MIA instead of DIA?

So the example which I brought up earlier, that of John Kipling, is pretty similar. Eg Adam Hochschild, To End All Wars (2011). He was engaged at Loos and was last seen wounded. His father, the (more famous) Rudyard Kipling of Jungle Book fame, pulled all of his connections in an attempt to discover if his son was alive or if dead, exactly how. Probably due to the death of any witnesses of the younger Kipling's death, he found nothing or very little eyewitness evidence and a non-existent paper trail. All of that said, the British government presumed that the younger Kipling was dead after a few months and acted accordingly. You had an assertion of benefits and civil courts or something like that: presumably war widow pensions or benefits would commence when the military declared someone MIA presumed dead. That determination also would, after seven years, also definitely become a rebuttable assumption.

As to the matter which you seem to think is at hand, providing information about someone's MIA presumed death is very easy. The government, or rather, military, says something like the following.


Then when the missing turns into missing presumed dead, a further letter is sent. If the requirement were, hypothetically, to provide as much information as possible and there is no information, providing a very sparse file would in fact fulfil that obligation.

Jedinsto wrote:Missing in Action Soldier (herein MIA) as a member of a military organization who has not been confirmed as dead or alive by their own organization following an armed conflict with another military organization,
...
Requires member states to provide all known information on the status and/or details of the deaths of an MIA or POW when all three of the following conditions are met:

1. Such information is available to the inquired member nation and can safely be provided,
2. Such information is not available in the nation for which the MIA or POW served,
3. Such information is requested by the nation for which the MIA or POW served.

OOC: Better, but, still, how's Nation B going to know Nation A has declared Soldier C as MIA?