NationStates

Definition of peace has been added. This will not be submitted until the queue has cleared.

Potted Plants United wrote:

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote: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

It is much easier to say "Devonia is about to invade us!!!!" than putting in the effort to do an entire false flag attack to "retaliate".

Starman of Stardust wrote:Definition of peace has been added. This will not be submitted until the queue has cleared.

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

It is much easier to say "Devonia is about to invade us!!!!" than putting in the effort to do an entire false flag attack to "retaliate".

"Requiring member nations to always suffer first blood is not good policy. Prohibiting member nations from proactively defending themselves when their intelligence agencies tell them that the enemy is preparing to attack is not good policy."

"The Princess generally supports what you are trying to do and that is why I am providing constructive feedback. Your insistence on prohibiting defensive first-strikes will prevent this from being a good law. If it's enacted at all, opponents will enjoy a very solid argument for repealing it."

"Do what you will with your proposal on this subject. But try to understand that most people believe it is justifiable self defense to shoot a knife-wielding maniac before they get close enough to stab you."

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:

Starman of Stardust wrote:Definition of peace has been added. This will not be submitted until the queue has cleared.


It is much easier to say "Devonia is about to invade us!!!!" than putting in the effort to do an entire false flag attack to "retaliate".

"Requiring member nations to always suffer first blood is not good policy. Prohibiting member nations from proactively defending themselves when their intelligence agencies tell them that the enemy is preparing to attack is not good policy."

"The Princess generally supports what you are trying to do and that is why I am providing constructive feedback. Your insistence on prohibiting defensive first-strikes will prevent this from being a good law. If it's enacted at all, opponents will enjoy a very solid argument for repealing it."

"Do what you will with your proposal on this subject. But try to understand that most people believe it is justifiable self defense to shoot a knife-wielding maniac before they get close enough to stab you."

"You can defend yourself without invading a nation you believe -- genuinely or not -- to be about to attack you."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Where does disputed territory fall under all of this? Would it be considered 'sovereign territory' of member states?

Also, we note that there is nothing regarding attacking and sinking ships on international waters, which would certainly count as an 'act of war' in our opinion.

Starman of Stardust wrote:

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:"Requiring member nations to always suffer first blood is not good policy. Prohibiting member nations from proactively defending themselves when their intelligence agencies tell them that the enemy is preparing to attack is not good policy."

"The Princess generally supports what you are trying to do and that is why I am providing constructive feedback. Your insistence on prohibiting defensive first-strikes will prevent this from being a good law. If it's enacted at all, opponents will enjoy a very solid argument for repealing it."

"Do what you will with your proposal on this subject. But try to understand that most people believe it is justifiable self defense to shoot a knife-wielding maniac before they get close enough to stab you."

"You can defend yourself without attacking a nation you believe -- genuinely or not -- to be about to attack you."

"Not always. Not 100% of the time. At least some of the time you're going to have to resort to force at some point."

"You're dealing in absolutes with a subject that should be addressed in degrees. Taking away the option entirely is bad policy. Authorizing pre-emptive strikes only with appropriate justification could be good policy. Much better policy than requiring member nations to take losses that they could have avoided if they were free to defend themselves proactively."

West Barack and East Obama wrote:Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Where does disputed territory fall under all of this? Would it be considered 'sovereign territory' of member states?

Also, we note that there is nothing regarding attacking and sinking ships on international waters, which would certainly count as an 'act of war' in our opinion.

"We believe both of these matters to now be addressed."

Bump.

Bump. Submitting this soon.

Starman of Stardust wrote:"Section 3b is the WA sponsoring wars!" It doesn't 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).

Article 2 applies only to member nations, not to the WA itself. Unless I'm missing something here!

Tinhampton wrote:

Starman of Stardust wrote:"Section 3b is the WA sponsoring wars!" It doesn't 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).

Article 2 applies only to member nations, not to the WA itself. Unless I'm missing something here!

The point is that others have complained (mainly on Discord) that 3b prevents further restrictions in other resolutions, when in fact the exception clearly only applies to 3b.

Bump.

“What is the purpose of the term ‘active’ in clause 3b? Surely, a member-nation that passively allows torture or genocide to occur should also be subject to armed intervention?” Lewitt mutters something about allowing certain capitalist ideologies under his breath.

Kenmoria wrote:“What is the purpose of the term ‘active’ in clause 3b? Surely, a member-nation that passively allows torture or genocide to occur should also be subject to armed intervention?” Lewitt mutters something about allowing certain capitalist ideologies under his breath.

"Active is used in the sense of 'ongoing'; this will be clarified."

Bump.

Section 1 - what is the provision of assistance to an act of war? Is the exchange of scientific knowledge which is then used by a member state to develop weapons used in their war of aggression the provision of assistance?

Section 2 - you say that the World Assembly declares acts of war to be crimes against peace, a category of war crime. Is there an actual effect to calling it this?

Section 4 - I feel like this section should better establish what the scope of the arbitration is supposed to be.

Comfed wrote:Section 1 - what is the provision of assistance to an act of war? Is the exchange of scientific knowledge which is then used by a member state to develop weapons used in their war of aggression the provision of assistance?

Fixed.

Section 2 - you say that the World Assembly declares acts of war to be crimes against peace, a category of war crime. Is there an actual effect to calling it this?
Indeed.

Section 4 - I feel like this section should better establish what the scope of the arbitration is supposed to be.

Done.

Against. Entirely a transplant from the TNP discord:

I am voting Against on anything post GA#2 unless there's a very clear consensus.

Also to quote Pallaith (I am going to use this quote a lot)

"Because it was needless destruction of foundational work that will allow the vultures to pick at its carcass for many iterations of votes for some new authorships but a lot of bad writing and failed attempts that may never cease to irritate us."

I also note that this was submitted as Ban on Wars of Aggression, then tabled and is now being redrafted as CoMA. Why?

Oppose.
The WA, as it stands, should not meddle in military affairs. For an institution that constantly flip-flops legislation, forces through "bad legislation/bad policy", often in the eyes of influent legislators (who then seek to forcefully repeal them), the WA should not get involved at all, or simply proscribe its military participation.
Getting real here: there is significant bias among various circles of this Assembly: pro-military, warmonger and interventionist policies are just ways of these supremacists to impose their will on the community.

The WA is already broken as it is, why give a terribly formulated institution the act of meddling with war and peace?

Tinhampton wrote:I also note that this was submitted as Ban on Wars of Aggression, then tabled and is now being redrafted as CoMA. Why?

This will be resubmitted shortly for some minor edits.

Simone Republic wrote:Against. Entirely a transplant from the TNP discord:

I am voting Against on anything post GA#2 unless there's a very clear consensus.

Also to quote Pallaith (I am going to use this quote a lot)

"Because it was needless destruction of foundational work that will allow the vultures to pick at its carcass for many iterations of votes for some new authorships but a lot of bad writing and failed attempts that may never cease to irritate us."

There's no way that the WA can come to a consensus for a replacement if everyone opposed one, unless everyone else supported.

Republic of Mesque wrote:Oppose.
The WA, as it stands, should not meddle in military affairs. For an institution that constantly flip-flops legislation, forces through "bad legislation/bad policy", often in the eyes of influent legislators (who then seek to forcefully repeal them), the WA should not get involved at all, or simply proscribe its military participation.
Getting real here: there is significant bias among various circles of this Assembly: pro-military, warmonger and interventionist policies are just ways of these supremacists to impose their will on the community.

The WA is already broken as it is, why give a terribly formulated institution the act of meddling with war and peace?

"Ambassador, this does not establish or authorise the World Assembly to participate in military affairs. In fact, it restricts the military abilities of member nations."

Starman of Stardust wrote:"Ambassador, this does not establish or authorise the World Assembly to participate in military affairs.

That's not the point. The stance which your commentary addresses is against any involvement of the WA in war and peace.

Starman of Stardust wrote:In fact, it restricts the military abilities of member nations."

Again, the WA ought to stay out of it. Today, you restrict military abilities of member nations. Tomorrow, nation X proposes WA humanitarian assistance. The next, nation Y goes on to promote WA military intervention.
We should draw the line.
The question remains: why give a terribly formulated institution the act of meddling with war and peace?

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - A gnome bearing a tablet enters the chamber. On the tablet, a suited man can be seen, fiddling nervously with some paper. “I do hope that I’m not intruding, Ambassadors. I simply wanted to ask about clause 4. Is the arbitration binding upon the involved parties, once they have agreed to it? Regardless of the answer to my query, I respectfully believe that it should be clarified.”

Kenmoria wrote:Deputy Ambassador John Smith - A gnome bearing a tablet enters the chamber. On the tablet, a suited man can be seen, fiddling nervously with some paper. “I do hope that I’m not intruding, Ambassadors. I simply wanted to ask about clause 4. Is the arbitration binding upon the involved parties, once they have agreed to it? Regardless of the answer to my query, I respectfully believe that it should be clarified.”

"Done."

Republic of Mesque wrote:

Starman of Stardust wrote:"Ambassador, this does not establish or authorise the World Assembly to participate in military affairs.

That's not the point. The stance which your commentary addresses is against any involvement of the WA in war and peace.

Starman of Stardust wrote:In fact, it restricts the military abilities of member nations."

Again, the WA ought to stay out of it. Today, you restrict military abilities of member nations. Tomorrow, nation X proposes WA humanitarian assistance. The next, nation Y goes on to promote WA military intervention.
We should draw the line.
The question remains: why give a terribly formulated institution the act of meddling with war and peace?

"The slippery slope fallacy remains as unconvincing as ever, ambassador. The passage of this does not prevent you from opposing 'WA military intervention', or indeed, substantially influence whether that would pass."

Starman of Stardust wrote:"The slippery slope fallacy remains as unconvincing as ever, ambassador. The passage of this does not prevent you from opposing 'WA military intervention', or indeed, substantially influence whether that would pass."

There is no slippery slope. What there is is hubris, bias, and use of clout in the WA to influence war and peace. The WA should be acting on the behalf of members’ citizens, not influencing military matters or geopolitics.
The comment above is just an example of a few nations pushing for an agenda, not necessarily in a progressive way. Many of these proposals are being discussed at this moment.
No to World Assembly meddling: it should keep itself as irrelevant as possible in these matters. Good luck with your proposal.

"Unfortunately, we will be discontinuing further work on this project, as the political climate appears to be against this proposal's passage. However, we will continue to support legislation by other missions to advance the goals of this proposal."