NationStates

The World Assembly,

Praising the ostensible goal of the resolution to protect conscientious objectors from being subject to forced military service, and accordingly noting that a replacement has already been fully drafted as to protect this goal upon repeal of the target, yet

Saddened that the resolution's definition of a "war of aggression" requires that said war be "initiated by the conscientious objector's nation", thus allowing member nations to force conscientious objectors to serve in combative roles to assist unjust wars of aggression by other nations,

Further noting that Article III, Section 4 also creates a major loophole, as it authorises member nations to force objectors to continue to serve in combative military duties for the rest of the original terms which they were assigned to serve for, so long as this is less than six months, which is plainly counterproductive to the protection of conscientious objectors,

Finding that coercing conscientious objectors to serve in military duties, even if for a limited period of time, is rarely helpful to a nation's military goals, as it would weaken the general morale of its armed forces and thereby hinder military goals, and

Believing that, as resolutions cannot be amended, the only way to address these problems is by repealing and replacing the target,

Repeals the "Military Freedom Act".

Starman of Stardust wrote:Further noting that Article III, Section 4 is also a major loophole,

Starman of Stardust wrote:Concerned that the definition of a "combative military duty" is self-contradictory, as it is defined as "any duty wherein a person is required to directly cause injury or death to any person", yet explicitly includes "the equipping of weaponry to machines or vehicles", which would often be a labourous and time-consuming process yet not necessarily one which would involve directly engaging in combat,

Heidgaudr wrote:Asgeir had several papers spread out before him on his desk. He held two pages side by side to compare them as he squinted his face, confused.

"Perhaps I'm missing something, but... when comparing your 'Saddened' clause with the current draft of your replacement, I can't help but be confused. In this repeal, you say that forcing people to fight in wars of defense is bad but then in your replacement, you write the very same thing. I understand that your replacement is a bit stricter in its requirements for forcing objectors to still fight, but it still seems a little, uh, disingenuous to me."

Starman of Stardust wrote:Further noting that Article III, Section 4 is also a major loophole,

"The wording of this implies that what came before it - the 'Saddened' clause - was also a major loophole. I don't think it is though. It seems to me to be very intentional."

Starman of Stardust wrote:Concerned that the definition of a "combative military duty" is self-contradictory, as it is defined as "any duty wherein a person is required to directly cause injury or death to any person", yet explicitly includes "the equipping of weaponry to machines or vehicles", which would often be a labourous and time-consuming process yet not necessarily one which would involve directly engaging in combat,

"This seems to be a pedantic argument about what exactly 'direct' means. Sure, they aren't the one firing the gun, but to objectors they would still very much be complicit in the crime. I think the intention is very clear, and the inclusion of 3a) ensured that even if a member didn't interpret such an action as being 'direct', that the objectors would still be protected."

Kenmoria wrote:“On a note of wording, the ‘further noting’ clause argues that article III, section 4 is a loophole. I would say that article III, section 4 rather contains a loophole. The loophole is a result of the clause, not the clause is itself. Beyond that, and my stylistic dislike of the italicisation of the entire final line, I have no objections to this repeal.”

Heidgaudr wrote:"I'm still unconvinced we should explicitly permit conscripting objectors in wars of defense. It seems to me a self-correcting behavior where many people who would object to wars of aggression would be willing to defend their nation. And the ones who would still object - well, I'm not sure I'd want to be handing them guns and counting on them to do their duty."

Simone Republic wrote:To quote Heidgaudr on the other thread:

Heidgaudr wrote:"I'm still unconvinced we should explicitly permit conscripting objectors in wars of defense. It seems to me a self-correcting behavior where many people who would object to wars of aggression would be willing to defend their nation. And the ones who would still object - well, I'm not sure I'd want to be handing them guns and counting on them to do their duty."

Same question I am asking Tinfect:

What happens if the objector's town has been blown to pieces, all his family members raped, tortured and killed, and the objector's neighbours are fighting invaders with machine guns? Is it acceptable for the objector to sit at home and play Candy Crush Saga?

The South Pacific recommends that you vote $FOR$ Repeal "Military Freedom Act", by Magecastle Embassy Building A5.

Please find the Office of WA Legislation's analysis of this repeal below, and make sure to upvote the OWL's recommendation dispatch.

The repeal in question aims to repeal the "Military Freedom Act" for a number of issues. The repeal first asserts it to be unjust that the definition of a "war of aggression" requires the war to be "initiated by the conscientious objector's nation", as it would result in conscientious objectors being conscripted into wars of aggression initiated by other nations. The repeal then argues that it is problematic that the target "authorises member nations to force objectors to continue to serve in combative military duties for the rest of the original terms which they were assigned to serve for, so long as this is less than six months, which is plainly counterproductive to the protection of conscientious objectors".

While the repeal only makes two arguments, they make a strong case to repeal its target. As to the first argument, we concur with its assessment -- there is no reason that conscientious objectors should be protected from conscription into wars of aggression initiated by their own nation, but not those initiated by another nation, as both the conscription and wars themselves are equally unjust regardless of what nation was the first to wage the war. While alone, this is arguably insufficient to repeal the target due to the resolution not directly blocking further legislation to address this matter, this is compounded by the second problem identified in the repeal.

The repeal then correctly points out that those assigned to longer terms are not entitled to immediate discharge: they may, in the eyes of the target, still be forced to serve for another six months. This, as stated by the repeal, is "plainly counterproductive to the protection of conscientious objectors". Further, this creates minimal, if any, benefit to the conscripting military force, due to the fact that conscripted conscientious objectors are likely to not only be demoralised themselves, but actively bring down and demoralise the rest of the military force. The target's wording blocks any further legislation to close this loophole, thus requiring repeal.

Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Repeal: 'Military Freedom Act'".

Simone Republic wrote:To quote Heidgaudr on the other thread:

Heidgaudr wrote:"I'm still unconvinced we should explicitly permit conscripting objectors in wars of defense. It seems to me a self-correcting behavior where many people who would object to wars of aggression would be willing to defend their nation. And the ones who would still object - well, I'm not sure I'd want to be handing them guns and counting on them to do their duty."

What happens if the objector's town has been blown to pieces, all his family members raped, tortured and killed, and the objector's neighbours are fighting invaders with machine guns? Is it acceptable for the objector to sit at home and play Candy Crush Saga?

Starman of Stardust wrote:"We have begun drafting a replacement."

The World Assembly,

Praising the ostensible goal of the resolution to protect conscientious objectors from being subject to forced military service, and accordingly noting that a replacement has already been fully drafted as to protect this goal upon repeal of the target, yet

Saddened that the resolution's definition of a "war of aggression" requires that said war be "initiated by the conscientious objector's nation", thus allowing member nations to force conscientious objectors to serve in combative roles to assist unjust wars of aggression by other nations,

Further noting that Article III, Section 4 also creates a major loophole, as it authorises member nations to force objectors to continue to serve in combative military duties for the rest of the original terms which they were assigned to serve for, so long as this is less than six months, which is plainly counterproductive to the protection of conscientious objectors,

Finding that coercing conscientious objectors to serve in military duties, even if for a limited period of time, is rarely helpful to a nation's military goals, as it would weaken the general morale of its armed forces and thereby hinder military goals, and

Believing that, as resolutions cannot be amended, the only way to address these problems is by repealing and replacing the target,

Repeals the "Military Freedom Act".

Proletarialand wrote:It seems more and more that the World Assembly passes undemocratic and fairly authoritarian resolutions. Nevertheless, I have voted in favour, only because voting against it will not achieve anything.

Brezzia wrote:Isn't the last sentence metagaming?

The Ice States wrote:

Proletarialand wrote:It seems more and more that the World Assembly passes undemocratic and fairly authoritarian resolutions. Nevertheless, I have voted in favour, only because voting against it will not achieve anything.

"How exactly is this repeal undemocratic and authoritarian?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Brezzia wrote:Isn't the last sentence metagaming?

Proletarialand wrote:

The Ice States wrote:"How exactly is this repeal undemocratic and authoritarian?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Well, you are effectively taking away the rights of those against war.