[WITHDRAWN] Convention Against Military Aggression

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"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."

"Well, if we're worried about false claims of impending attack... seems to me that the same nations that would falsely claim to be reacting to an impending attack would also falsely claim that they have already been attacked. It's not like false flag operations are unheard of. What do we gain by disempowering all member nations in their self-defense simply because of the possibility of bad faith by some wicked member nations, who would probably find ways to fix up an excuse for war anyway."

"Why we are stopping a member nation that reasonably believes it faces impending attack from using all means at its disposal in self defense remains a mystery to me."

"Our delegation will happily support any effort to reduce worldwide military spending. But we do believe that failing to make reasonable accommodations for pre-emptive military strikes in self defense will make this an easy target for a future repeal effort. If it passes in the first place."

[Attempted Socialism]

"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."

"Well, if we're worried about false claims of impending attack... seems to me that the same nations that would falsely claim to be reacting to an impending attack would also falsely claim that they have already been attacked. It's not like false flag operations are unheard of. What do we gain by disempowering all member nations in their self-defense simply because of the possibility of bad faith by some wicked member nations, who would probably find ways to fix up an excuse for war anyway."

"Why we are stopping a member nation that reasonably believes it faces impending attack from using all means at its disposal in self defense remains a mystery to me."

"Our delegation will happily support any effort to reduce worldwide military spending. But we do believe that failing to make reasonable accommodations for pre-emptive military strikes in self defense will make this an easy target for a future repeal effort. If it passes in the first place."

OOC: Can you name a RL instance of a preemptive strike that was justified and worked? Not something you might say in hindsight; an invasion that actually happened.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Well, if we're worried about false claims of impending attack... seems to me that the same nations that would falsely claim to be reacting to an impending attack would also falsely claim that they have already been attacked. It's not like false flag operations are unheard of. What do we gain by disempowering all member nations in their self-defense simply because of the possibility of bad faith by some wicked member nations, who would probably find ways to fix up an excuse for war anyway."

"Why we are stopping a member nation that reasonably believes it faces impending attack from using all means at its disposal in self defense remains a mystery to me."

"Our delegation will happily support any effort to reduce worldwide military spending. But we do believe that failing to make reasonable accommodations for pre-emptive military strikes in self defense will make this an easy target for a future repeal effort. If it passes in the first place."

OOC: Can you name a RL instance of a preemptive strike that was justified and worked? Not something you might say in hindsight; an invasion that actually happened.

OOC: The 1967 Arab-Israeli War is the best example. Not that I want to be dragged into a debate over mid east politics here. Just that many reasonable observers would consider that a model of the modern pre-emptive strike.

It is at least arguable that the Sino-Russian War of 1904 started with a Japanese pre-emptive strike against the growing Russian military presence in Manchuria, and was successful in delaying Russian advance in the east long enough that the Revolution ultimately derailed any imperialistic Russian eastern expansion. (Also taught the Japanese a trick they would try to use again in 40 years, but with substantially less ultimate success...) (P.S. I chose that example because I thought it would be particularly salient to Your Socialistness.)

I am sure several of the attacks by Native American tribes in the French and Indian War against the advancing British colonials could probably be categorized as pre-emptive. Although you asked for pre-emptive strikes that "worked" and I'm not sure those did.

*Edited multiple times for spelling and grammar.*

[Uan aa Boa]

...the act of aggression in question has not been ceased prior to any period of de facto peace; such retaliation is proportionate to said act of aggression; and all nations targetted by such retaliation participated in the act of aggression in question.

Could you make this clearer? After several readings I think it might be intending to say that proportionate retaliation doesn't count as an act of aggression, but that's not what it actually says.

No member nation or entity therein may provide assistance, material or otherwise, to any violation of this Section.

Depending on what counts as an entity, this could make non-compliant any nation from which jihadists departed to join Islamic State. Is it reasonable to expect governments to exert that degree of control over people within their borders?

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, where said non-compliance is sufficiently severe that the public's interest in addressing said non-compliance outweighs the public's interest against acts of aggression.

So we get to bomb non-complaint nations? No. I'm resolutely opposed to the threat of force being used by the WA.

Defense.[/b] A member nation (hereinafter "signatory") may, subject to World Assembly law, enter a public agreement with another nation (hereinafter "defendee") binding the signatory to engage in armed attack of any nation which engages in an act of aggression against the defendee.

This is a really bad idea. Suppose a nation had signed such an agreement with Ukraine. It would now be obliged not to defend Ukraine but to attack Russia. Do you really think mandatory escalation of conflicts is a good plan? Additionally you mentioned proportionality in clause 1, but not here, so this appears to justify a nuclear response to an isolated border post incident, for example.

[Starman of Stardust]

...the act of aggression in question has not been ceased prior to any period of de facto peace; such retaliation is proportionate to said act of aggression; and all nations targetted by such retaliation participated in the act of aggression in question.

Could you make this clearer? After several readings I think it might be intending to say that proportionate retaliation doesn't count as an act of aggression, but that's not what it actually says.

Done.

No member nation or entity therein may provide assistance, material or otherwise, to any violation of this Section.

Depending on what counts as an entity, this could make non-compliant any nation from which jihadists departed to join Islamic State. Is it reasonable to expect governments to exert that degree of control over people within their borders?

I've removed the entity wording for the time being.

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, where said non-compliance is sufficiently severe that the public's interest in addressing said non-compliance outweighs the public's interest against acts of aggression.

So we get to bomb non-complaint nations? No. I'm resolutely opposed to the threat of force being used by the WA.

I'm not too interested in enticing a genocidal nation to join the WA just so that it can avoid humanitarian intervention.

Defense.[/b] A member nation (hereinafter "signatory") may, subject to World Assembly law, enter a public agreement with another nation (hereinafter "defendee") binding the signatory to engage in armed attack of any nation which engages in an act of aggression against the defendee.

This is a really bad idea. Suppose a nation had signed such an agreement with Ukraine. It would now be obliged not to defend Ukraine but to attack Russia. Do you really think mandatory escalation of conflicts is a good plan? Additionally you mentioned proportionality in clause 1, but not here, so this appears to justify a nuclear response to an isolated border post incident, for example.

This should be fixed; I have removed this Section and merged it with Section 1.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Can you name a RL instance of a preemptive strike that was justified and worked? Not something you might say in hindsight; an invasion that actually happened.

OOC: Not justified itself, but this false flag operation was used as the justification for Soviets attacking Finland in WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Can you name a RL instance of a preemptive strike that was justified and worked? Not something you might say in hindsight; an invasion that actually happened.

OOC: The 1967 Arab-Israeli War is the best example. Not that I want to be dragged into a debate over mid east politics here. Just that many reasonable observers would consider that a model of the modern pre-emptive strike.

It is at least arguable that the Sino-Russian War of 1904 started with a Japanese pre-emptive strike against the growing Russian military presence in Manchuria, and was successful in delaying Russian advance in the east long enough that the Revolution ultimately derailed any imperialistic Russian eastern expansion. (Also taught the Japanese a trick they would try to use again in 40 years, but with substantially less ultimate success...) (P.S. I chose that example because I thought it would be particularly salient to Your Socialistness.)

I am sure several of the attacks by Native American tribes in the French and Indian War against the advancing British colonials could probably be categorized as pre-emptive. Although you asked for pre-emptive strikes that "worked" and I'm not sure those did.

*Edited multiple times for spelling and grammar.*

I freely grant that both your 1967 and 1904 examples worked, insofar that the victorious sides instigated favourable wars resulting in occupation and annexation, but I would not agree that they were justified. Both were aggressive moves where a lot of innocent people died to further imperialist ambitions, the territory being fought over was belonging to and settled by other people who did not want to be occupied and annexed, and both had dire ramifications. The only thing going for these two examples are that there was arguably blame on both sides (The Arab coalition was preparing an invasion which they saw as preemptive or retaliatory, Tsarist Russia did not actually want a war with Japan, but their actions in general were aggressive and war could have been avoided if the Russian leaders had been more competent or even just less abhorrently racist), but that is not IMO a good reason for a carveout in this resolution. If preemptive strikes had been banned (And nations involved had been compliant, of course) in 1967 and 1904, you can see a timeline where war had been entirely avoided.
Further, your Native American example was not successful, and I would argue it is incorrect to categorise them as preemptive wars of aggression, because the Native Americans themselves were victims of wars of aggression. Retaliating if you are invaded is not illegal, per the definitions in clause 1. Again, if the Native Americans, British, and French, had all been WA members this resolution could have stopped a lot of horrific acts from ever occurring.

OOC: Can you name a RL instance of a preemptive strike that was justified and worked? Not something you might say in hindsight; an invasion that actually happened.

OOC: Not justified itself, but this false flag operation was used as the justification for Soviets attacking Finland in WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

It's hard to argue that it worked, though. Isn't the traditional Finnish saying that the Soviets didn't win enough land to bury their dead? Or something to that effect? The Nazis also used a false flag to excuse their invasion of Poland, calling it a preemptive strike against an aggressive Poland. I don't think Nazi German or Soviet Russian behaviour serves as good examples of why preemptive strikes should have an exemption in this resolution, which is presumably why PRS chose other instances.

[West Barack and East Obama]

where said non-compliance is sufficiently severe that the public's interest in addressing said non-compliance outweighs the public's interest in the enforcement of Section 2.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Typical meaningless waffling. How do you determine the public's interest? Is there a referendum needed to see if the public supports war? Or does the government decide on their behalf? Or do the magical gnomes at the IAO automatically know an objective, quantitative value regarding the 'public's interest'?

Also, the 'proportionate response' is unacceptable. What do you mean by proportionate? Does it mean that a small nation invaded by a big army must also scramble to find a massive army in order to be allowed to defend itself? In any case, restricting the size of military action when you are literally being attacked is incredibly problematic and a total slap in the face of nations' sovereignty.

[Starman of Stardust]

where said non-compliance is sufficiently severe that the public's interest in addressing said non-compliance outweighs the public's interest in the enforcement of Section 2.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Typical meaningless waffling. How do you determine the public's interest? Is there a referendum needed to see if the public supports war? Or does the government decide on their behalf? Or do the magical gnomes at the IAO automatically know an objective, quantitative value regarding the 'public's interest'?

"Using case law, jurisprudence, and a court (ie the IAO)."

Also, the 'proportionate response' is unacceptable. What do you mean by proportionate? Does it mean that a small nation invaded by a big army must also scramble to find a massive army in order to be allowed to defend itself? In any case, restricting the size of military action when you are literally being attacked is incredibly problematic and a total slap in the face of nations' sovereignty.

"A warmongering nation wanting military action to be unrestricted is unsurprising, but I am not inclined to take much account into such an objection. National sovereignty does not excuse mass murder campapigns against those from other nations."

"We have, however, altered to clause to clarify that military action which is smaller than the original action is not prohibited."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the justifiability of the pre-emptive strikes I mention. Surely you will concede that reasonable minds may differ on that.

I understood PPU’s point to be that bad actors can always drum up a false flag attack so they can “retaliate”. The point they were making is not that the Russians were engaging in a pre-emptive strike to prevent incoming aggression from the Fins. The point is that if we’re excluding pre-emptive strikes on the basis that bad faith actions would exploit them to start wars without proper justification, then we should assume the bad actors will also drum up “legal” retaliatory excuses for their wars. (I think, PPU correct me if I’m wrong here).

Which brings me back to the point I was making: by flatly outlawing pre-emptive strikes, we’re only forcing good faith actors to suffer casualties before they can protect themselves from what might be obvious preparation for incoming attacks. Meanwhile, the bad faith actors will continue to start any wars they please simply by fabricating lawful excuses for them.

[Greater Cesnica]

"We take issue with Article 1(b). The United Republic of Greater Cesnica reserves the right to respond how it sees fit to an armed attack against itself or an ally. We will not hinder our ability to bring ruin to any enemy military by restraining ourselves according to the principle of 'proportionality'. As such, we are declaring our opposition to this proposal as it stands."

[Starman of Stardust]

"We have -- reluctantly -- withdrawn to remove 1b. This will be resubmitted shortly."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Aside from the fact that this is technically illegal for referencing the repeal of Rights and Duties, which has not yet happened at the time of writing, the definition needs more work.

1) The definition is of "act of aggression" and it uses this term in the definition. This is circular.
2) Because the exemption refers to this "public agreement" thing. As far as I am aware, RL Ukraine did not have such agreements with all the countries who are now assisting it. Why would you want to ban this?
3) 1b. Would have banned Ukraine from invading Crimea to retake it had it had the ability to do so prior to the current war.

[Starman of Stardust]

Ooc: This will likely be withdrawn when the site comes back, per this, to be resubmitted.

OOC: Aside from the fact that this is technically illegal for referencing the repeal of Rights and Duties, which has not yet happened at the time of writing, the definition needs more work.

1) The definition is of "act of aggression" and it uses this term in the definition. This is circular.
2) Because the exemption refers to this "public agreement" thing. As far as I am aware, RL Ukraine did not have such agreements with all the countries who are now assisting it. Why would you want to ban this?
3) 1b. Would have banned Ukraine from invading Crimea to retake it had it had the ability to do so prior to the current war.

1) Yes. I fail to see why that is a problem, one need not understand the term "act of aggression" as it would be if undefined to be able to understand the definition.
2) Unless those nations are directly engaging in the armed attack themselves, merely providing assistance is not banned. The exception applies to "said armed attack", not the assistance thereto.
3) Fair enough, but I also don't know how to fix this without opening up situations where a nation may seek to reclaim territory invaded 100 years ago where the nations have been at peace since.

[Kenmoria]

“Seeing as this will be resubmitted when, or if, reality reasserts itself, I have some feedback to offer. The first is that the General Assembly is not particularly bureaucratic, and bureaucracy does not have positive connotations. Therefore, I recommend ‘collective’ as opposed to ‘bureaucracy’ in the third preambulatory clause. The second is more of a question. Why did you choose the IAO for the purposes of clause 3? This seems a little out-of-place with the IAO’s other functions. Wouldn’t the Compliance Commission be better suited to this?”

[Starman of Stardust]

“Seeing as this will be resubmitted when, or if, reality reasserts itself, I have some feedback to offer. The first is that the General Assembly is not particularly bureaucratic, and bureaucracy does not have positive connotations. Therefore, I recommend ‘collective’ as opposed to ‘bureaucracy’ in the third preambulatory clause. The second is more of a question. Why did you choose the IAO for the purposes of clause 3? This seems a little out-of-place with the IAO’s other functions. Wouldn’t the Compliance Commission be better suited to this?”

"The World Assembly is a bureaucracy. Indeed, we should have more bureaucracy in the World Assembly. Why do some individuals dislike bureaucracy?"

"As to the Independent Adjudicative Office, the WACC, as said in its founding document, is merely "a truth-seeking commission". Meanwhile, the Independent Adjudicate Office is the entity which sentences member nations for non-compliance; if it has the power to declare fines and trade sanctions on member nations, it would also be fit to have the authority to determine when to exclude nations from the protections of this resolution."

[The Ice States]

This will be resubmitted in a few hours; this your final chance to comment on this otherwise-perfect proposal.

[Bananaistan]

2) Unless those nations are directly engaging in the armed attack themselves, merely providing assistance is not banned. The exception applies to "said armed attack", not the assistance thereto.

OOC: The definition could do with work to make this clear.

3) Fair enough, but I also don't know how to fix this without opening up situations where a nation may seek to reclaim territory invaded 100 years ago where the nations have been at peace since.

Are you saying that this is too hard to write so you just won't bother and NS version of Ukraine can go sing for all you care?

[Starman of Stardust]

2) Unless those nations are directly engaging in the armed attack themselves, merely providing assistance is not banned. The exception applies to "said armed attack", not the assistance thereto.

OOC: The definition could do with work to make this clear.

Done.

3) Fair enough, but I also don't know how to fix this without opening up situations where a nation may seek to reclaim territory invaded 100 years ago where the nations have been at peace since.

Are you saying that this is too hard to write so you just won't bother and NS version of Ukraine can go sing for all you care?

What would your preferred alternative policy be? Nb GA #399 would already prohibit the provision of armaments to such an invasion.

[Uan aa Boa]

If you're still changing the definitions you shouldn't be at last call stage. And they do need changed, because they're not very clear.

Using Ukraine as an example, if a third nation were to attack Russian forces located in Ukraine would this be an act of aggression against Russia (as Russia would certainly claim)? If so, would providing arms to Ukraine to allow them to attack Russian forces in their country be material assistance to such an act? If Ukraine launched missile attacks aimed at civilian targets in Russia as a retaliation, would this be an act of aggression or exempt under 2a? If a third nation had signed a treaty with Ukraine undertaking to retaliate against any nation that attacked Ukraine, would 2a now give that nation permission to bomb targets in Russia?

What does it mean to take armed action "against an act of aggression"? Armed attacks have tangible targets such as people and places. It's hard to attack an action. What is "a period of de facto peace" and how do we know what counts as one? Was the (relatively) low level fighting in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022 sufficient to prevent the situation being de facto peace or not? What would this proposal say about a counter-invasion of Crimea (other than that it's too hard to deal with)?

Why is there no mention of proportionality?

Regarding the exemption for honouring treaties, why should a nation be allowed to undertake armed action that would otherwise be illegal simply because they agreed in advance that they would? If I publicly promised to punch anyone who hurt my friend, following through on that would still be assault.

This isn't ready for submission.

[Starman of Stardust]

If you're still changing the definitions you shouldn't be at last call stage. And they do need changed, because they're not very clear.

To be frank, given how stuffed the queue is right now, I would rather get this done and over with sooner than later.

Using Ukraine as an example, if a third nation were to attack Russian forces located in Ukraine would this be an act of aggression against Russia (as Russia would certainly claim)? If so, would providing arms to Ukraine to allow them to attack Russian forces in their country be material assistance to such an act?

Fixed.

If Ukraine launched missile attacks aimed at civilian targets in Russia as a retaliation, would this be an act of aggression or exempt under 2a? If a third nation had signed a treaty with Ukraine undertaking to retaliate against any nation that attacked Ukraine, would 2a now give that nation permission to bomb targets in Russia?

It technically would not be an act of aggression, despite certainly being a war crime (eg GA #317).

What does it mean to take armed action "against an act of aggression"? Armed attacks have tangible targets such as people and places. It's hard to attack an action. What is "a period of de facto peace" and how do we know what counts as one? Was the (relatively) low level fighting in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022 sufficient to prevent the situation being de facto peace or not? What would this proposal say about a counter-invasion of Crimea (other than that it's too hard to deal with)?

I have altered the use of the word "against" as to clearly refer to retaliation against. De facto peace self-evidently means peace, as occurs de facto.

Why is there no mention of proportionality?

See here; ie to make this more palatable to WA voters at large.

Regarding the exemption for honouring treaties, why should a nation be allowed to undertake armed action that would otherwise be illegal simply because they agreed in advance that they would? If I publicly promised to punch anyone who hurt my friend, following through on that would still be assault.

To avoid prohibiting mutual defense agreements. What a nation can do on behalf of its ally is subject to the same restrictions as that nation acting for itself. In your example, it would almost certainly be illegal for your friend to punch anyone who hurt them, so this would be a false analogy.

[Goobergunchia]

Madeleine, in the Goobergunchian WA offices, opens the envelope marked "Submitted General Assembly Proposal" that has just been delivered by a gnomish courier, and reads:

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;

"Huh", she thinks, "did I miss that vote finally closing?"

Nope. The floor vote annunciator in the office still displayed "Repeal 'Rights and Duties of WA States', stuck at "Voting ends now." as it had been for a bizarrely long time.

[West Barack and East Obama]

To be frank, given how stuffed the queue is right now, I would rather get this done and over with sooner than later.

OOC: And to be Barack Frank as well, this is the completely wrong approach. If anything, the current state of the GA queue means you should slow down because this proposal isnt going to be passed anytime soon. The last thing you want is to rush this to vote and have it defeated, then you've wasted your time and everyone else's. Obviously this isn't in a state to be submitted yet so what's the rush? Proposals take time to be fully developed, especially ones like this which would have immense consequences for the entire universe, so slow down omaigosh.

[Uan aa Boa]

De facto peace self-evidently means peace, as occurs de facto.

No shit Sherlock. If this proposal passes, at some point a WA compliance commission is going to have to adjudicate on whether or not an armed action is illegal when the circumstances are messy, complex and contested. Is this genuinely all you're going to give them to go on? No clue as to how long a suitable period is? Nothing on whether civil unrest and (possibly state-sponsored) terrorism constitute a lack of de facto peace?

A lot of resolutions have been repealed recently for lacking in clear instructions, so it's not wise to be so vague on a point that's central to the whole purpose of the proposal.

[Potted Plants United]

I understood PPU’s point to be that bad actors can always drum up a false flag attack so they can “retaliate”. The point they were making is not that the Russians were engaging in a pre-emptive strike to prevent incoming aggression from the Fins. The point is that if we’re excluding pre-emptive strikes on the basis that bad faith actions would exploit them to start wars without proper justification, then we should assume the bad actors will also drum up “legal” retaliatory excuses for their wars. (I think, PPU correct me if I’m wrong here).

OOC: You got it right. I didn't explain my point clearly. Glad you were awake enough to do so. XD