[WITHDRAWN] Convention Against Military Aggression

[Starman of Stardust]

Global Disarmament, Significant.

"Section 3b is the WA sponsoring wars!" It does not sponsor or authorise anything. It merely leaves it to a second resolution to legislate on further (as shown by "exceptions shall apply to Section 2"; not necessarily to other resolutions). Just because something is determined to be "essential for the halting of a...crime against humanity" does not necessarily make it impossible to restrict or prohibit in other resolutions. In addition,

"What about wars with non-members?" See International Peace Program.

"It refers to humanity!? Speciesist against the sapient potatoes of Contrarian Extraordinaire!!" See GA #355. Likewise, the WA Commission on Human Rights is an existing committee; see GA #194, § 5.

Whereas member nations, having united with each other to form this august institution, should work in harmony together to improve the world;

Whereas the World Assembly should use its influence to protect the security of member nations, allowing them to more efficiently spend their finite resources and collaborate to improve the world without having to cope with the threat of armed attack from other member nations; and

Whereas this body's recent repeal of "Rights and Duties of WA States" has opened the doors to greater opportunities to promote peace between the nations of this grand bureaucracy;

Be it resolutely enacted as follows.

1. Acts of war. For the purposes of this resolution, an act of war against a nation shall mean any act involving the wilful use of armed force to prevent that nation from exercising full sovereignty over its jurisdiction. The act of wilfully assisting an act of war against a nation shall itself be considered an act of war against that nation.
   
   
2. Sovereignty. No member nation may engage in any act of war against another member nation, subject only to Section 3. The World Assembly shall consider any violation of this Section to be a heinous crime, and a crime against peace.
   
   
3. Exceptions. Regardless of this resolution's other mandates, the following exceptions shall apply to Section 2.
   
   
   1. Section 2 shall not prohibit armed action which (i) is taken by a member nation to retaliate against an act of war against that nation, targeting only those nations responsible for said act of war; and (ii) does not interrupt any period of the de facto absence of armed conflict. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit the provision of assistance to such action.
      
      
   2. Humanitarian intervention, which is determined by the World Assembly Commission on Human Rights to be essential for the halting of a widespread, ongoing act explicitly or implicitly classified by World Assembly law as a crime against humanity; and is performed in the most limited manner necessary to halt said act; shall not be prohibited by Section 2.
   
   
4. Dispute arbitration. The Wartime Service for Arbitration (WSA) is a subcommittee of the International Mediation Foundation, and shall arbitrate disputes vis-à-vis acts of war upon consent from all involved parties. Such arbitration is to occur on internationally neutral territory, and shall have the goal of ending, preventing, or preventing escalation of armed conflict. Further, said arbitration shall be binding if all involved parties have agreed to be legally bound by the arbitration award.

[Starman of Stardust]

Believing that member nations, having united with each other to form this august institution, should work in harmony together to improve the world,

Recognising this body's recent repeal of "Rights and Duties of WA States",

Excited by the opportunity to establish a novel set of rights and duties for member nations, as to ensure that the World Assembly works together to defeat the goblinoid menace of Orcs,

The World Assembly resolutely enacts as follows _

1. Compliance. Each member nation must, to the best of its ability and in good faith, ensure its compliance with all active World Assembly law, including this resolution. World Assembly law shall take supremacy over all other national, subnational, or international law in or binding member nations. Further, all member nations must conduct their foreign activity in bona fide compliance with World Assembly law.
   
   
2. Sovereignty. Every member nation which fully complies with Section 1 shall be recognised as a sovereign state by both the World Assembly and all other member nations thereof. Accordingly, subject to international law, every member nation compliant with Section 1 shall have the right to maintain and exercise full jurisdiction over its territory. No member nation may, via armed attack, attempt to seize territory or resources from another member nation compliant with Section 1, excluding where
   
   
   
   1. the attacked nation poses a clear threat to the sovereignty of the attacking member nation; or
      
      
   2. said attack occurs to recover only those territory or resources seized by the attackee from the attacker without any period of de facto peace since the original seizure.
   
   
3. Assistance. No member nation may knowingly provide assistance, material or otherwise, to any violation of Section 2; nor should Section 2 be interpreted as preventing the World Assembly from imposing further restrictions on armed attack of nations beyond that specified in Section 2.
   
   
4. Due process. Member nations shall maintain equality under World Assembly law. Yet, the World Assembly shall maintain the ability to directly or indirectly penalise any member nation which fails in its duty under Section 1.

Recognising that the repeal of "Rights and Duties of WA States" writ large has opened an ominous silence in World Assembly surrounding such a governing charter, yet also established greater opportunity for legislation to function as a charter for member nations,

Finding that it is of utmost importance that member nations comply with World Assembly law in good faith, as is it important to prevent unnecessary conflict between members of this august institution,

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _

1. Compliance. Each member nation must, to the best of its ability and in good faith, comply with all active World Assembly law, including this resolution.
   
   
2. Sovereignty. Every member nation which fully complies with Section 1 shall be recognised as a sovereign state by both the World Assembly and all other member nations thereof. No member nation may, via armed attack, attempt to seize territory or resources from another member nation compliant with Section 1, excluding where
   
   
   
   1. the attacked nation poses a clear threat to the sovereignty of the attacking member nation; or
      
      
   2. said attack occurs to recover only those territory or resources seized by the attackee from the attacker without any period of de facto peace since the original seizure.
   
   
3. Assistance. No member nation may knowingly provide assistance, material or otherwise, to any violation of Section 2; nor does Section 2 prevent the World Assembly from imposing further restrictions on armed attack of nations beyond that specified in Section 2.
   
   
4. Due process. Member nations shall maintain equality under World Assembly law. Yet, the World Assembly may directly or indirectly enforce penalties upon any member nation which fails in its duty under Section 1.

[Kenmoria]

“I think it is far to say that I care about preambles more than most ambassadors in the General Assembly. They are not merely window-dressing, but rather statements of international policy, being spoken by a multiverses organisation with terrifying levels of reach. With that in mind, and with respect to the delegation for the International Democratic Union, this preamble is utterly inadequate. It reads like any other proposal’s preamble. However, this is not any proposal. This is a replacement for, arguably, the second-most important resolution in the General Assembly.”

“Where are the references to the fact that the community of nations and of states has formed a voluntary union of association? Where are the longings for multiversal peace and harmony? Where are the findings that the General Assembly is desirous of a new proposal, because it has moved beyond the simple mindless copying of its earliest days, and now seeks one created by the community of member nations as a whole? For a proper replacement, I would appreciate a preamble that exceeds the standard of GA #002, and I did quite like that resolution’s preamble.”

[Tinhampton]

I cannot support the final sentence of this resolution. GA#440 already exists.

[Starman of Stardust]

I cannot support the final sentence of this resolution. GA#440 already exists.

"The final sentence is primarily a symbolic gesture to clarify that the World Assembly reserves the right to coerce compliance directly or indirectly. I am aware that GA #440 is unlikely to be repealed, hence the effect is largely symbolic."

“I think it is far to say that I care about preambles more than most ambassadors in the General Assembly. They are not merely window-dressing, but rather statements of international policy, being spoken by a multiverses organisation with terrifying levels of reach. With that in mind, and with respect to the delegation for the International Democratic Union, this preamble is utterly inadequate. It reads like any other proposal’s preamble. However, this is not any proposal. This is a replacement for, arguably, the second-most important resolution in the General Assembly.”

“Where are the references to the fact that the community of nations and of states has formed a voluntary union of association? Where are the longings for multiversal peace and harmony? Where are the findings that the General Assembly is desirous of a new proposal, because it has moved beyond the simple mindless copying of its earliest days, and now seeks one created by the community of member nations as a whole? For a proper replacement, I would appreciate a preamble that exceeds the standard of GA #002, and I did quite like that resolution’s preamble.”

"We hope that this has been addressed now, with a rewrite on the preamble."

[Starman of Stardust]

"We have rewritten Section 4 with the Tinhamptonian mission to address their concerns surrounding Section 4."

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: We are fine with this. Allowing nations who 'find WMDs' in other nations clearly poses a 'threat to sovereignty', allowing for war to commence.

[Starman of Stardust]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: We are fine with this. Allowing nations who 'find WMDs' in other nations clearly poses a 'threat to sovereignty', allowing for war to commence.

"You are not even in the World Assembly, so you would not be affected by this should it pass.

"In any case, we have added clearer definitions of an 'act of aggression' to avoid this issue."

"In case this is not clear, we have collaborated with the Kenmorian mission so as to tailor this draft to only address wars of aggression, rather than replacing the entirety of GA #2."

[Attempted Socialism]

I'll just recommend publicly that you emphasise -- in the preamble -- the benefits for WA members that with this resolution they are guaranteed a far more secure existence, which is good for the surviving regime, but also means that they can spend their limited resources on other means if they so desire.
I'll also have to ask the obligatory: category and strength?

[Starman of Stardust]

I'll just recommend publicly that you emphasise -- in the preamble -- the benefits for WA members that with this resolution they are guaranteed a far more secure existence, which is good for the surviving regime, but also means that they can spend their limited resources on other means if they so desire.

Done.

I'll also have to ask the obligatory: category and strength?

Global Disarmament, Strong.

[Heidgaudr]

I'll also have to ask the obligatory: category and strength?

Global Disarmament, Strong.

Personally, feels more like Political Stability - Strong to me, but Global Disarmament - Strong is acceptable.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the less Global Disarmament - Strong makes sense to me. This resolution would probably incidentally lead to some reduction in military spending, but nowhere near enough to justify GD - Strong.

Recognising this body's recent repeal of "Rights and Duties of WA States", opening the doors to greater restrictions to promote peace between the nations of this grand bureaucracy,

"Restrictions" feels like a word that an opponent would use against this proposal. "Opportunities" would be better IMHO.

Aggression. For the purposes of this resolution, an act of aggression against a nation shall be any act intended to forcefully and physically prevent that nation from receiving or providing goods respectively from or to other nations; or engagement in, provision of assistance in, or credible threatening of, armed attack against that nation, including via a formal declaration of war.

I really dislike how unwieldy this definition is. Maybe take a look at how the IRL UN defines it for some inspiration. (Second sentence of the link.)

Exclusion. The Independent Adjudicative Office may exclude a member nation from Section 2 protections if that nation engages in an act of non-compliance with World Assembly law of sufficient severity as to merit exclusion from the protections of this resolution. No member nation or entity therein may invoke a Section 4 agreement with a nation excluded under this Section from the protections of Section 2.

That's very circular logic. "Nations are excluded if they're worthy of being excluded." I'd rather put in some better-defined reasons for exclusions. Depending on how strict you want to be, possibly require general good faith compliance to be protected, or have the exclusion reason be gross and/or repeated compliance violations.

[WayNeacTia]

Global Disarmament, Strong.

Global Disarmament - A resolution to slash worldwide military spending

.
This does not do that.

[The Ice States]

Global Disarmament, Strong.

Personally, feels more like Political Stability - Strong to me, but Global Disarmament - Strong is acceptable.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the less Global Disarmament - Strong makes sense to me. This resolution would probably incidentally lead to some reduction in military spending, but nowhere near enough to justify GD - Strong.

To be honest, I can't get behind the stat effect of reducing political freedom over increasing pacifism and lowering defense forces . I also don't see how banning nations from going to war with each other decreases political freedoms, and is thus PS. Is going to war with other nations a political freedom?

It does appear that past war restrictions have gone in GD, so I think it is an appropriate category.

Recognising this body's recent repeal of "Rights and Duties of WA States", opening the doors to greater restrictions to promote peace between the nations of this grand bureaucracy,

"Restrictions" feels like a word that an opponent would use against this proposal. "Opportunities" would be better IMHO.

Done.

Aggression. For the purposes of this resolution, an act of aggression against a nation shall be any act intended to forcefully and physically prevent that nation from receiving or providing goods respectively from or to other nations; or engagement in, provision of assistance in, or credible threatening of, armed attack against that nation, including via a formal declaration of war.

I really dislike how unwieldy this definition is. Maybe take a look at how the IRL UN defines it for some inspiration. (Second sentence of the link.)[/quote]
Will do.

Exclusion. The Independent Adjudicative Office may exclude a member nation from Section 2 protections if that nation engages in an act of non-compliance with World Assembly law of sufficient severity as to merit exclusion from the protections of this resolution. No member nation or entity therein may invoke a Section 4 agreement with a nation excluded under this Section from the protections of Section 2.

That's very circular logic. "Nations are excluded if they're worthy of being excluded." I'd rather put in some better-defined reasons for exclusions. Depending on how strict you want to be, possibly require general good faith compliance to be protected, or have the exclusion reason be gross and/or repeated compliance violations.

The mandate only has the IAO exclude a nation if the non-compliance is "of sufficient severity" -- I will, however, rework this clause as to make it clear that exclusion depends on severity.

[Aicrowian Canada]

This will probably not be passed but it will make it past the WA

[Starman of Stardust]

Bump.

[Jedinsto]

Limit the scope to wars of aggression between member nations, and this has my support.

[Starman of Stardust]

Limit the scope to wars of aggression between member nations, and this has my support.

Section 2, the only binding mandate upon member nations which is not an exception, only addresses wars between member nations.

[Jedinsto]

Limit the scope to wars of aggression between member nations, and this has my support.

Section 2, the only binding mandate upon member nations which is not an exception, only addresses wars between member nations.

Must've missed it. My apologies. You have my support.

[Starman of Stardust]

Final bump.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

1. Aggression. For the purposes of this resolution, an act of aggression against a nation shall mean the use of armed force against and at the expense of that nation, or the provision of assistance, material or otherwise, to such an act. Yet, this shall never include any instance where a nation seeks to retaliate against an act of aggression against that nation or a Section 4 ally thereof, as long as the act of aggression in question has not been ceased prior to any period of de facto peace; and all nations targetted by such retaliation participated in the act of aggression in question.
   
   
2. Sovereignty. No member nation may engage in armed attack of any other member nation where the latter nation has not engaged in an act of aggression either against the attacking nation, or a Section 4 ally thereof. Any violation of this Section shall be considered a heinous crime and a crime against peace.
   
   
   1. If said act of aggression has been ceased, such armed attack must occur prior to any period of de facto peace since the cessation of the act of aggression in question.
      
      
   2. No member nation or entity therein may provide assistance, material or otherwise, to any violation of this Section; nor should this resolution be interpreted as obstructing any future restrictions on armed attack of nations beyond that specified in this resolution.

"Shouldn't there be some allowance for pre-emptive strikes?," says disgraced former boxer Ayli T'waite. "Let me tell you, when you hold your punches until the other guy punches you first, you sometimes get punched several times before you can do anything about it. Sometimes, you get knocked out."

"Also, are nations really expected to just sit there like an idiot while the opponent wraps barbed wire around their gloves, gathers a group of angry friends, and gives them all folding chairs? I know I'm mixing in professional wrestling metaphors here but surely we can do with some allowance for pre-emptive strikes. Under appropriate circumstances only, of course."

Exclusion. The Independent Adjudicative Office may exclude a member nation from Section 2 protections in response to that nation's non-compliance with any standing World Assembly law, depending on the severity of said non-compliance. No member nation or entity therein may, for the purposes of this resolution, invoke a Section 4 agreement with a nation excluded under this Section from the protections of Section 2.

"What's this now? So if a member nation falls short on, say, providing quality health care or fully legalizing bee-keeping they might be subject to aggressive bombing and military invasion by other member nations? Depending on the will of the gnomes! I don't like it when bee-keepers aren't sufficiently promoted any more than you do, but it's hard for me to support war over it."

[Potted Plants United]

a nation seeks to retaliate against an act of aggression against that nation

OOC: So, Nation A once attacked Nation B 500 years ago. Nation B can now "retaliate" freely, even though they've been at peace for 495 years since that war.

[Starman of Stardust]

1. Aggression. For the purposes of this resolution, an act of aggression against a nation shall mean the use of armed force against and at the expense of that nation, or the provision of assistance, material or otherwise, to such an act. Yet, this shall never include any instance where a nation seeks to retaliate against an act of aggression against that nation or a Section 4 ally thereof, as long as the act of aggression in question has not been ceased prior to any period of de facto peace; and all nations targetted by such retaliation participated in the act of aggression in question.
   
   
2. Sovereignty. No member nation may engage in armed attack of any other member nation where the latter nation has not engaged in an act of aggression either against the attacking nation, or a Section 4 ally thereof. Any violation of this Section shall be considered a heinous crime and a crime against peace.
   
   
   1. If said act of aggression has been ceased, such armed attack must occur prior to any period of de facto peace since the cessation of the act of aggression in question.
      
      
   2. No member nation or entity therein may provide assistance, material or otherwise, to any violation of this Section; nor should this resolution be interpreted as obstructing any future restrictions on armed attack of nations beyond that specified in this resolution.

"Shouldn't there be some allowance for pre-emptive strikes?," says disgraced former boxer Ayli T'waite. "Let me tell you, when you hold your punches until the other guy punches you first, you sometimes get punched several times before you can do anything about it. Sometimes, you get knocked out."

"Also, are nations really expected to just sit there like an idiot while the opponent wraps barbed wire around their gloves, gathers a group of angry friends, and gives them all folding chairs? I know I'm mixing in professional wrestling metaphors here but surely we can do with some allowance for pre-emptive strikes. Under appropriate circumstances only, of course."

"No."

Exclusion. The Independent Adjudicative Office may exclude a member nation from Section 2 protections in response to that nation's non-compliance with any standing World Assembly law, depending on the severity of said non-compliance. No member nation or entity therein may, for the purposes of this resolution, invoke a Section 4 agreement with a nation excluded under this Section from the protections of Section 2.

"What's this now? So if a member nation falls short on, say, providing quality health care or fully legalizing bee-keeping they might be subject to aggressive bombing and military invasion by other member nations? Depending on the will of the gnomes! I don't like it when bee-keepers aren't sufficiently promoted any more than you do, but it's hard for me to support war over it."

"We have added a balancing test to improve clarity in when the IAO can exclude a nation."

a nation seeks to retaliate against an act of aggression against that nation

OOC: So, Nation A once attacked Nation B 500 years ago. Nation B can now "retaliate" freely, even though they've been at peace for 495 years since that war.

Ooc: Read Section 1b.

[Potted Plants United]

Ooc: Read Section 1b.

OOC: Whole clause 1 is really hard to parse - in RL examples, Russia's recent attack against Ukraine would not count as aggression, because they illegally occupied a piece of Ukraine earlier and so the "act of aggression against nation, at the expense of that nation" never stopped to begin with....? Or if Ukraine attacked Russia (advancing troops on Russian soil), it wouldn't count because of that? Or if Romania had a military aid deal with Ukraine, it could attack Russia without it counting as aggression? Or what?

Can you give me a solid example? Not necessarily using RL nations. The reference to clause 4 in that clause makes things even muddier.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Shouldn't there be some allowance for pre-emptive strikes?," says disgraced former boxer Ayli T'waite. "Let me tell you, when you hold your punches until the other guy punches you first, you sometimes get punched several times before you can do anything about it. Sometimes, you get knocked out."

"Also, are nations really expected to just sit there like an idiot while the opponent wraps barbed wire around their gloves, gathers a group of angry friends, and gives them all folding chairs? I know I'm mixing in professional wrestling metaphors here but surely we can do with some allowance for pre-emptive strikes. Under appropriate circumstances only, of course."

"No."

"Okay... but why? Why shouldn't member nations be allowed to use military force pre-emptively to defeat attacks in the preparation stage, before they materialize? Why should the people of member nations be legally required to suffer before they can react. Most theories of self-defense include the idea that a person may act proactively to diffuse imminent threats before they materialize into harm. Why should this one be different, and who is benefiting from that?"

[Starman of Stardust]

Ooc: Read Section 1b.

OOC: Whole clause 1 is really hard to parse - in RL examples, Russia's recent attack against Ukraine would not count as aggression, because they illegally occupied a piece of Ukraine earlier and so the "act of aggression against nation, at the expense of that nation" never stopped to begin with....? Or if Ukraine attacked Russia (advancing troops on Russian soil), it wouldn't count because of that? Or if Romania had a military aid deal with Ukraine, it could attack Russia without it counting as aggression? Or what?

Can you give me a solid example? Not necessarily using RL nations. The reference to clause 4 in that clause makes things even muddier.

Ooc: Is this issue resolved if it is clarified that retaliation must be "proportionate to said act of aggression"? I fail to see how invading a nation because of a relatively minor border conflict is "proportionate"; likewise, invading a nation does not appear to be usually "proportionate to" merely supplying arms to opponents of the standing regime.

"No."

"Okay... but why? Why shouldn't member nations be allowed to use military force pre-emptively to defeat attacks in the preparation stage, before they materialize? Why should the people of member nations be legally required to suffer before they can react. Most theories of self-defense include the idea that a person may act proactively to diffuse imminent threats before they materialize into harm. Why should this one be different, and who is benefiting from that?"

"The possibility of frivolous pre-emptive wars, such as where a nation wages war on a nation claiming falsely -- whether knowingly or not -- that they were about to be invaded, outweighs any benefit in nations merely having to wait until aggression actually occurs before attacking. Nowhere does this prevent member nations from, for example, preparing for attack if they believe that they are about to be invaded."