[Passed] End Collective Punishment

[The Forest of Aeneas]

OOC: No resolution bans exile to my knowledge. Freezing the assets of individuals is not banned; a standing resolution even requires it in certain situations! GA#601 permits member states to restrict freedom of travel 'enforce a court order', which a member state can certainly use to set up a prison for families of political criminals, even if it has to be whittled down from e.g. kwalliso forced labour and torture camps. Extrajudicial punishment is also NOT necessarily banned.

1. The forced removal of a group of people (e.g. Palestinians) based on a certain reductive characteristic is probably genocide and probably definitely banned.

Destruction of houses of specific individuals as collective punishment is not necessarily considered 'genocide' by WA law.

2. If the WA encourages it, and it’s not already banned, maybe you should work on a resolution that bans that instead of this.
3. Ditto
4. Ditto

I don't get this argument. Because there's many different methods of collective punishment, one resolution is needed per each method?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Post a new thread. A defeated proposal should stay in its old thread.

[Fachumonn]

Post a new thread. A defeated proposal should stay in its old thread.

It was withdrawn.

[Honeydewistania]

I don't get this argument. Because there's many different methods of collective punishment, one resolution is needed per each method?

I’m just saying, if these are all egregious humans rights violations, why don’t we just prohibit those outright? Then we wouldn’t need to ban family members from being treated like this if it’s banned for everyone.

[WayNeacTia]

I don't get this argument. Because there's many different methods of collective punishment, one resolution is needed per each method?

I’m just saying, if these are all egregious humans rights violations, why don’t we just prohibit those outright? Then we wouldn’t need to ban family members from being treated like this if it’s banned for everyone.

Why, when one can just cram it all into an omnibus resolution? That always works out swimmingly in the end... right?

[The Forest of Aeneas]

I don't get this argument. Because there's many different methods of collective punishment, one resolution is needed per each method?

I’m just saying, if these are all egregious humans rights violations, why don’t we just prohibit those outright? Then we wouldn’t need to ban family members from being treated like this if it’s banned for everyone.

Because all collective punishment is a human rights violation. Obviously, different types or methods of collective punishment will be more or less egregious, but deliberately punishing innocents because who they happen to live near, or who they have a similar bodily pigmentation to, or what family they are in, is still a human rights violation.

[Honeydewistania]

I’m just saying, if these are all egregious humans rights violations, why don’t we just prohibit those outright? Then we wouldn’t need to ban family members from being treated like this if it’s banned for everyone.

Because all collective punishment is a human rights violation. Obviously, different types or methods of collective punishment will be more or less egregious, but deliberately punishing innocents because who they happen to live near, or who they have a similar bodily pigmentation to, or what family they are in, is still a human rights violation.

Let’s all just forget about ‘collective punishment’ for a moment. There is a concentration camp in Nation X. For some reason, it’s not banned by the WA. So WA law is passed to ban it and there’s no more camp. But under your law, it just means that people can’t be collectively punished there, so people who are convicted of crimes that they committed can still be sent there and suffer from human rights violations. Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban these human rights violations in the first place instead of this?

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Because all collective punishment is a human rights violation. Obviously, different types or methods of collective punishment will be more or less egregious, but deliberately punishing innocents because who they happen to live near, or who they have a similar bodily pigmentation to, or what family they are in, is still a human rights violation.

Let’s all just forget about ‘collective punishment’ for a moment. There is a concentration camp in Nation X. For some reason, it’s not banned by the WA. So WA law is passed to ban it and there’s no more camp. But under your law, it just means that people can’t be collectively punished there, so people who are convicted of crimes that they committed can still be sent there and suffer from human rights violations. Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban these human rights violations in the first place instead of this?

Concentration camps are effectively banned by GA#534: Fair Treatment of Prisoners. As I acknowledged in this post, World Assembly Dictatorship 69420 will already have to whittle down from full-blown labour and torture camps, but even if it's a regular prison it's still a human rights violation precisely because it's collective punishment.

[Honeydewistania]

Let’s all just forget about ‘collective punishment’ for a moment. There is a concentration camp in Nation X. For some reason, it’s not banned by the WA. So WA law is passed to ban it and there’s no more camp. But under your law, it just means that people can’t be collectively punished there, so people who are convicted of crimes that they committed can still be sent there and suffer from human rights violations. Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban these human rights violations in the first place instead of this?

Concentration camps are effectively banned by GA#534: [i]Fair Treatment of Prisoners. As I acknowledged in this post, World Assembly Dictatorship 69420 will already have to whittle down from full-blown labour and torture camps, but even if it's a regular prison it's still a human rights violation precisely because it's collective punishment.

Alright, so what’s stopping nations from simply coming up with some inane laws and imprisoning these people that they want collectively punished but now it’s okay because it’s not collective punishable by the definition? Then what?

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Concentration camps are effectively banned by GA#534: [i]Fair Treatment of Prisoners. As I acknowledged in this post, World Assembly Dictatorship 69420 will already have to whittle down from full-blown labour and torture camps, but even if it's a regular prison it's still a human rights violation precisely because it's collective punishment.

Alright, so what’s stopping nations from simply coming up with some inane laws and imprisoning these people that they want collectively punished but now it’s okay because it’s not collective punishable by the definition? Then what?

It would have been helpful if you had said the issue was with the definition earlier, but whatever lol. What is the specific issue with the definition then?

Edit: Updated draft so as to ban laws designed to target those associated with/related to criminals

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Submission is soon™.

[Morover]

Is the most recent draft the one at the top of the thread or the one in the "fifteenth draft" tab? I ask because it seems like the fifteenth draft is more sophisticated than the one at the top, but I simply am having hard time figuring this out.

I.E. improve navigation of the OP.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Is the most recent draft the one at the top of the thread or the one in the "fifteenth draft" tab? I ask because it seems like the fifteenth draft is more sophisticated than the one at the top, but I simply am having hard time figuring this out.

I.E. improve navigation of the OP.

OOC: The one at the top is the 16th draft. It's not more sophisticated - just more verbose

[Morover]

Is the most recent draft the one at the top of the thread or the one in the "fifteenth draft" tab? I ask because it seems like the fifteenth draft is more sophisticated than the one at the top, but I simply am having hard time figuring this out.

I.E. improve navigation of the OP.

OOC: The one at the top is the 16th draft. It's not more sophisticated - just more verbose

No, I stand by what I said honestly. I can admit that the rest of the proposal may be better off, but the changes to the first clause either leave out important stipulations or perhaps is just phrased in such a way that is not clear. Either way, I'm curious why you changed it from the fifteenth draft, since no justification seems to have been given.

To be clear, I'm not saying I oppose this, but it seems to me like the previous draft was more easily supportable, given the changes with the clause that contains the broad mandate of the proposal.

I hope this post made sense. I just woke up and I'm still groggy.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

OOC: The one at the top is the 16th draft. It's not more sophisticated - just more verbose

No, I stand by what I said honestly. I can admit that the rest of the proposal may be better off, but the changes to the first clause either leave out important stipulations or perhaps is just phrased in such a way that is not clear. Either way, I'm curious why you changed it from the fifteenth draft, since no justification seems to have been given.

To be clear, I'm not saying I oppose this, but it seems to me like the previous draft was more easily supportable, given the changes with the clause that contains the broad mandate of the proposal.

I hope this post made sense. I just woke up and I'm still groggy.

Fair enough. I've reversed most of the changes in structure, though I've still kept the reword of 2 (to avoid the clunky 'convictions [member states] have decided' wording) and the ban on targetting of those associated with criminals.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Let's see how this goes, shall we?

[Chinese USSR]

Personally liked the final draft

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. Two questions for the Ambassador. First,

Clarifies that this resolution does not ban member states from purposefully punishing, convicting, or otherwise retaliating against persons for... A punishable act unambiguously committed under their authority.

Why would a person – the plural thereof being the nearest reasonable referent – have "authority" and what sort of authority do you expect would not be immunising? And second,

Bans member states from purposefully punishing, convicting, or otherwise targetting for punishment, any individual for: Any act they did not personally commit; or Any connection or relationship to an individual, on the basis that that individual has committed a punishable or unlawful act;

How does this not ban punishment for actions committed by one person in furtherance of a conspiracy? Let's say we agree to burn down an orphanage that is connected to a hospital for fawns and cute dogs. I don't burn it down directly. You set the fire with the fuel, matches, lighter fluid, etc that I provided. Why should I get a lighter (heh) sentence?

The "organisation" clause doesn't solve this issue. The government would have to know of our organisation and then ban it (ie proscribe it, ie write it down, see pro-scribo-tio) to have any effect. Otherwise, the government would be enforcing what would be – in effect – an ex post facto ban on our organisation to make the world quiet here.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Thank you to Ambassador Blythe for the feedback.'

C Marcius Blythe. Two questions for the Ambassador. First,

Clarifies that this resolution does not ban member states from purposefully punishing, convicting, or otherwise retaliating against persons for... A punishable act unambiguously committed under their authority.

Why would a person – the plural thereof being the nearest reasonable referent – have "authority" and what sort of authority do you expect would not be immunising?

'Authority could include employer's authority, command authority, parental authority, principal's authority, etc.'

And second,

Bans member states from purposefully punishing, convicting, or otherwise targetting for punishment, any individual for: Any act they did not personally commit; or Any connection or relationship to an individual, on the basis that that individual has committed a punishable or unlawful act;

How does this not ban punishment for actions committed by one person in furtherance of a conspiracy? Let's say we agree to burn down an orphanage that is connected to a hospital for fawns and cute dogs. I don't burn it down directly. You set the fire with the fuel, matches, lighter fluid, etc that I provided. Why should I get a lighter (heh) sentence?

'You cannot be punished for the act of burning down that orphanage; that is indeed intentional. However, you can certainly be punished for your act of conspiring to burn down that house, as well as facilitating the burning of that house; in fact, there is nothing preventing a member state from giving the same sentence to you than to the person who actually burnt down the orphanage, as long as the punishments are determined separately.'

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Thank you to Ambassador Blythe for the feedback.'

'Authority could include employer's authority, command authority, parental authority, principal's authority, etc.'

'You cannot be punished for the act of burning down that orphanage; that is indeed intentional. However, you can certainly be punished for your act of conspiring to burn down that house, as well as facilitating the burning of that house; in fact, there is nothing preventing a member state from giving the same sentence to you than to the person who actually burnt down the orphanage, as long as the punishments are determined separately.'

C Marcius Blythe. So as to the question of a command authority, what does it mean to be "under" an authority? Actions by someone under the auspices of another are accorded to the other even if the other had nothing to do with those actions. Eg Val. Max. 2.8.2 (denying the right to triumph to a praetor who was a consular subordinate when a triumph was given to the consul even though the consul was indisposed for the entire battle). Is that intentional? On the other matter, if you accept that the sentences would be adjudged evenly, why would nations be stopped from making what would de facto be some kind of collective punishment by deciding to investigate and then punish all persons who are – I don't know, Hyperboreans, – equally for disparate acts?

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Thank you to Ambassador Blythe for the feedback.'

'Authority could include employer's authority, command authority, parental authority, principal's authority, etc.'

'You cannot be punished for the act of burning down that orphanage; that is indeed intentional. However, you can certainly be punished for your act of conspiring to burn down that house, as well as facilitating the burning of that house; in fact, there is nothing preventing a member state from giving the same sentence to you than to the person who actually burnt down the orphanage, as long as the punishments are determined separately.'

C Marcius Blythe. So as to the question of a command authority, what does it mean to be "under" an authority? Actions by someone under the auspices of another are accorded to the other even if the other had nothing to do with those actions. Eg Val. Max. 2.8.2 (denying the right to triumph to a praetor who was a consular subordinate when a triumph was given to the consul even though the consul was indisposed for the entire battle). Is that intentional?

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. If that commander was not actively in command of the actions of whatever subordinate committed a war crime, then presumably another would have held that authority in their place. Regarding responsibility for the commanders of any action by their subordinates that they were not necessarily involved in, yes that is intentional.

On the other matter, if you accept that the sentences would be adjudged evenly, why would nations be stopped from making what would de facto be some kind of collective punishment by deciding to investigate and then punish all persons who are – I don't know, Hyperboreans, – equally for disparate acts?

'What act did every Hyperborean commit that caused them to be responsible for that act, Ambassador? If laws are implemented that make all Hyperboreans legally liable for acts committed by a member, that would most certainly be punishing Hyperborean 69 for the act of Hyperborean 420, who committed that act. Even if that member state decides to make laws designed to target Hyperboreans for any act committed by one, that would be 'targetting for punishment' every Hyperborean for ethnic connection to any other Hyperborean who violates the law.'

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. Yes.

'What act did every Hyperborean commit that caused them to be responsible for that act, Ambassador? If laws are implemented that make all Hyperboreans legally liable for acts committed by a member, that would most certainly be punishing Hyperborean 69 for the act of Hyperborean 420, who committed that act. Even if that member state decides to make laws designed to target Hyperboreans for any act committed by one, that would be 'targetting for punishment' every Hyperborean for ethnic connection to any other Hyperborean who violates the law.'

C Marcius Blythe. Saying "yes" does not in fact answer the first part of the question, which has to do with what it means to be "under" an authority. Your non-verbal pointing to Command Responsibility is a non sequitur: commanders are not strictly liable for any action committed by any subordinate. (Even if they are in Roman triumphal law.) They are liable only in a negligence context if they could have prevented those actions and failed to do so:

Commanders are criminally liable for: ordering any act in knowing contravention of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict, or ... failing to take necessary action to prevent or punish subordinate violations of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict where the commander knows or has information that allows them to conclude that their subordinates were about to or had contravened those World Assembly laws.

A consul who is entirely indisposed is not liable under Command Responsibility if some subordinate praetor commits various war crimes. But more importantly, can you clarify as to the other examples? They get into different questions. Your interpretation of "under" seems to be extremely expansive. Can you define "under" and contextualise what you intend "unambiguous" to mean?

As to the second part, I don't think you're understanding the point that I am making. The "disparate acts" are various actions committed at various times by these Hyperboreans. One might be speeding, one might be jaywalking, one might be burning orphanages to the ground; they are all sent to work camps in Sardinia for ten years. This is a question of enforcement resources being dissimilar, not of some corruption of the blood. Nor would Cocr [kohker] resolve de facto discriminatory enforcement issue: "compelling practical purposes" establishes a rational-basis standard of review and it is therefore necessarily weak.

OOC. Stop breaking up replies.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

C Marcius Blythe. Saying "yes" does not in fact answer the first part of the question, which has to do with what it means to be "under" an authority. Your non-verbal pointing to Command Responsibility is a non sequitur: commanders are not strictly liable for any action committed by any subordinate. (Even if they are in Roman triumphal law.) They are liable only in a negligence context if they could have prevented those actions and failed to do so:

Commanders are criminally liable for: ordering any act in knowing contravention of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict, or ... failing to take necessary action to prevent or punish subordinate violations of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict where the commander knows or has information that allows them to conclude that their subordinates were about to or had contravened those World Assembly laws.

A consul who is entirely indisposed is not liable under Command Responsibility if some subordinate praetor commits various war crimes. But more importantly, can you clarify as to the other examples? They get into different questions. Your interpretation of "under" seems to be extremely expansive. Can you define "under" and contextualise what you intend "unambiguous" to mean?

As to the second part, I don't think you're understanding the point that I am making. The "disparate acts" are various actions committed at various times by these Hyperboreans. One might be speeding, one might be jaywalking, one might be burning orphanages to the ground; they are all sent to work camps in Sardinia for ten years. This is a question of enforcement resources being dissimilar, not of some corruption of the blood. Nor would Cocr [kohker] resolve de facto discriminatory enforcement issue: "compelling practical purposes" establishes a rational-basis standard of review and it is therefore necessarily weak.

OOC. Stop breaking up replies.

'If that commander was 'entirely indisposed', they obviously would not be actively holding authority over their subordinates, and there would presumably be a replacement military commander in that authority who would instead be liable.

In regard to other forms of 3.b, the most obvious example would be an employer whose employee was acting in the scope of employment while committing a tort or crime; for example, if an employee violates speeding limits while delivering a product to a customer for their employer, and that employee then, because they violated speeding limits, crashed into someone else's cat. The employee was therefore acting under the scope of their employer's authority, and therefore, under their employer's authority.

Additionally, it should be noted that this does not in any way require member states to enforce such liability. It merely excludes it from its ban, (purposefully) meaning that member states may - subject to past World Assembly law - enforce it, at their discretion.'

'In regards to the second point; discriminatory enforcement is not the scope of this proposal. This proposal's scope is entirely banning member states from punishing innocents because they're associated with one who has committed an unlawful act. It is not to prevent discriminatory enforcement, even if the two scopes of discriminatory enforcement and collective punishment may partially - but not completely - overlap.'

[Fachumonn]

Let's see how this goes, shall we?

Well, this has been approved.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Withdrawn. Resubmission shortly, hopefully for the final time.