NationStates

Ban on Forced Service
Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Significant

Origin: Infinite Sovereignty,

Author: Raxes Sotriat, Envoy to the World Assembly

Sovereign Committee on World Assembly Affairs, Administration

Counsel: Maraline, Administrative Aide

---

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that many Member-States utilize conscription or coercive military recruitment mechanisms,

Appalled that this clear gap in forced labor provisions has thus-far been allowed to stand,

Hereby;

Defines Forced Service as any law, policy, or other legal mechanism that compels, coerces, or otherwise requires military service, whether in combat or non-combat roles, or which punishes rejection of such service,

Prohibits Member-States from establishing or continuing any Forced Service mechanisms,

Mandates that any and all military personnel who are victims of Forced Service by a Member-State be offered honorable, non-punitive discharge at the earliest opportunity.

"As this draft does not have any relation to matters of conscientious objection, we see no conflict with Resolution #132. We would like to see its repeal, but that's rather an issue for another time. The Sovereignty, of course, hopes to submit... at some point. Looking at the Secretariat's queue, well, I'm sure there will be a good time to submit, eventually."

OOC:
Now 50% more submitted.

This isn't quite the same issue, but I'll refer you to GAR #132, "Military Freedom Act" for existing WA law on conscription.

Wallenburg wrote:This isn't quite the same issue, but I'll refer you to GAR #132, "Military Freedom Act" for existing WA law on conscription.

OOC:
As I brought it up in the OP, I am quite well aware of Resolution #132, and I do not see a contradiction or much specific relevance.

"We would support this measure in principle. We also do not see any issues on a first review of this draft."

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

This is unreasonable. Conscription may be essential for surviving a defensive war, especially one where the invader has genocidal or otherwise brutal and oppressive intents. Nations should not be compelled to sacrifice their own people in order to avoid the lesser evil of limited involuntary labor.

El Lazaro wrote:This is unreasonable. Conscription may be essential for surviving a defensive war, especially one where the invader has genocidal or otherwise brutal and oppressive intents. Nations should not be compelled to sacrifice their own people in order to avoid the lesser evil of limited involuntary labor.

The Rarian delegation shares these concerns. We strongly oppose this proposal.

El Lazaro wrote:This is unreasonable. Conscription may be essential for surviving a defensive war, especially one where the invader has genocidal or otherwise brutal and oppressive intents. Nations should not be compelled to sacrifice their own people in order to avoid the lesser evil of limited involuntary labor.

"Erm, excuse me, but you don't seem to understand what conscription is in such situations. It is the very definition of sacrificing one's own people; the mass deployment of unwilling, unprofessional, very likely under-trained and equipped personnel is the quick path to mass casualty and desertion. While we are not unsympathetic to the matter of defense against a war-criminal enemy, there exists the clear and present danger of fascistic or otherwise harmful regimes, - I hope you will excuse the crude phrasing, - throwing lives into a meat-grinder so as to defend their own power and position. We have seen this throughout history, even in the face of enemies which are far from well-intentioned, and the devastation such wreaks upon the populace and country is not something that is easily remedied.

On the matter of genocides specifically, we are not entirely disinclined from adding an exception, but neither are we entirely willing to. I would say that if an enemy is genuinely attempting genocide, then there will be no shortage of willing recruits, as, well, people tend not to like that very much."

Second Sovereignty wrote:On the matter of genocides specifically, we are not entirely disinclined from adding an exception, but neither are we entirely willing to. I would say that if an enemy is genuinely attempting genocide, then there will be no shortage of willing recruits, as, well, people tend not to like that very much."

"We generally agree. When a nation's very existence is at stake, there are plenty of willing recruits. If some members think they'd be at risk without conscription, perhaps they should consider policies that mitigate the risk of invasion - say, by taking less belligerent foreign policy actions - as well as making their nation one which average citizens would actually wish to defend. Treat your people well, and they'll reciprocate.

"As for meaningful critique, the preamble is missing the last logical step. We establish what forced service is and that the WA can regulate it, but we're missing the moral supposition that forced service is unequivocally evil and deserves to have such harsh action taken.

"Full support."

"Opposed, to an extent subject to what is meant by this clause:"

Second Sovereignty wrote:Defines Forced Service as any law, policy, or other legal mechanism that compels, coerces, or otherwise requires military service, whether in combat or non-combat roles, or which punishes rejection of such service

"Which of the following hypothetical systems would be subject to this? A simple 'mandatory service' requirement with non-military options available to all citizens? A wartime draft that recognises conscientious objections? Mandatory combat training with no subsequent expectation of service? Punitive conscription? Recruitment officers targeting those too desperate to refuse enlistment bonuses?"
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

Juansonia wrote:"Opposed, to an extent subject to what is meant by this clause:"[...]"Which of the following hypothetical systems would be subject to this? "

"Well, let's just, list them out, shall we?"

Juansonia wrote:A simple 'mandatory service' requirement with non-military options available to all citizens?

"Covered by this draft and existing proscriptions on forced labor. Non-combat roles are included in the text, quite intentionally."

Juansonia wrote:A wartime draft that recognises conscientious objections?

"A 'draft' is a process that is prohibited outright; the draft makes no mention or account for conscientious objection, which is intentional, and such is already handled, albeit, extremely poorly, by Resolution #132."

Juansonia wrote:Mandatory combat training with no subsequent expectation of service?

"There exists no proscription on such things in the draft as such is merely an extension of education, and, while perhaps distasteful for us, can be a necessary and beneficial part of a Government's policy."

Juansonia wrote:Punitive conscription?

"Prohibited outright by this draft. Prisoner enslavement in general is already prohibited by other legislation."

Juansonia wrote:Recruitment officers targeting those too desperate to refuse enlistment bonuses?

"Not explicitly prohibited, but the Sovereignty is planning to put forward legislation to prevent such abject poverty from being a factor in general.

I do hope that answers all of your questions?"

Greetings from the armed Republic of lake fish
I am spokesperson flippers speaking on behalf of our glorious and honorable leader.
We believe that "forced service" is a flawed idea only made to weaken the militaries of multiple nations. Possibly opening them up to attacks from their neighbours.
We must regonize that we live in times that are the opposite of peaceful. Once moves are made to limit the current amount of wars and the ease that people can start wars should be enacted first instead of taking away weaker states means to defend themselves.
In lake fish, we have mandatory military conscription for at least one year.
This also allows for more jobs among the population, making sure the population will always have at least one place they can do to work, ontop of previously Recieved military training due to the mandatory conscription period.

Thank you for listening to our concerns in this important fishue.
-spokesperson flippers of the armed Republic of lake fish

Death to the anti christ. Glory to lake fish. Glory to the greater spawn region.

"The People's Republic of Lesbias can agree with most of this resolution, however what it is meant by 'Defines Forced Service as any law, policy, or other legal mechanism that compels, coerces, or otherwise requires military service, whether in combat or non-combat roles, or which punishes rejection of such service,' ? What practices does compel include? Could providing benefits for serving count as compulsion? Lesbias holds that the phrase compels or coerces is too nebulous of a phrase and strongly recommends a change or assigning definitions to the terms."

- World Assembly Delegate for Lesbias Leonardas Pilypas

"Strongly opposed." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

Second Sovereignty wrote:

Juansonia wrote:A simple 'mandatory service' requirement with non-military options available to all citizens?

"Covered by this draft and existing proscriptions on forced labor."

"I have added emphasis to the part where you are wrong. GA#23 excludes 'national service' from its definition of forced labor, and GA#132 expressly allows nations to compel conscientious objectors into non-military duties, so long as such does not constitute punishment or penalty. While I am aware that you intend to ban all forms of 'national service requirements', lying about their current legality will only serve to undermine your efforts."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

" Non-combat roles are included in the text, quite intentionally."

"I said non-military roles, not non-combat military roles. There is a difference, and this proposal only prohibits requiring service in the latter."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

OOC: It'd make more sense to define forced service as the condition of being conscripted, not as a mechanism of conscription.

OOC edit: Noting change in Juansonia's stance on this proposal.

Juansonia wrote:"I have added emphasis to the part where you are wrong. GA#23 excludes 'national service' from its definition of forced labor, and GA#132 expressly allows nations to compel conscientious objectors into non-military duties, so long as such does not constitute punishment or penalty. While I am aware that you intend to ban all forms of 'national service requirements', lying about their current legality will only serve to undermine your efforts."

"You will have to forgive me for assuming that you were discussing military affairs with regards to a draft which is clearly concerned with military affairs; it is not a lie, merely a misunderstanding."

Juansonia wrote:"I said non-military roles, not non-combat military roles. There is a difference, and this proposal only prohibits requiring service in the latter."

"Yes, as we are rather less concerned with civilian obligations. Our focus on military affairs is quite intentional, I assure you."

Second Sovereignty wrote:

Juansonia wrote:"I have added emphasis to the part where you are wrong. GA#23 excludes 'national service' from its definition of forced labor, and GA#132 expressly allows nations to compel conscientious objectors into non-military duties, so long as such does not constitute punishment or penalty. While I am aware that you intend to ban all forms of 'national service requirements', lying about their current legality will only serve to undermine your efforts."

"You will have to forgive me for assuming that you were discussing military affairs with regards to a draft which is clearly concerned with military affairs; it is not a lie, merely a misunderstanding."

"It's a shame that you're trying to portray me as an idiot. The problem is that you claimed that the practice which I described (a simple 'mandatory service' requirement with non-military options available to all citizens) was illegal under extant WA law. However, a quick look into WA law on the matter showed otherwise. You didn't have to make the claim that it was illegal under extant law. This would have been purely a matter of ideological differences if you simply said that it would be prohibited by your proposal. But you couldn't help yourself, and now you are being confronted with your mistake."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

Juansonia wrote:"I said non-military roles, not non-combat military roles. There is a difference, and this proposal only prohibits requiring service in the latter."

"Yes, as we are rather less concerned with civilian obligations. Our focus on military affairs is quite intentional, I assure you."[/quote]"So the practice wouldn't even be illegal under your proposal, since all military service is voluntary within the scope of mandatory 'national service' with several non-military alternatives."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Juansonia wrote:"It's a shame that you're trying to portray me as an idiot. The problem is that you claimed that the practice which I described (a simple 'mandatory service' requirement with non-military options available to all citizens) was illegal under extant WA law. However, a quick look into WA law on the matter showed otherwise. You didn't have to make the claim that it was illegal under extant law. This would have been purely a matter of ideological differences if you simply said that it would be prohibited by your proposal. But you couldn't help yourself, and now you are being confronted with your mistake."

Raxes chitters brightly, utterly unfazed by the growing hostility. "Well aren't you aggressive. Do you assume the worst of everyone you meet, or is it something to do with my species? Perhaps you should consult a social therapist; I can put in a recommendation with your government, if you would like. Regardless, I'm not attempting to portray you as anything, I assure you, but you are free to make of yourself whatever you like."

Juansonia wrote:"So the practice wouldn't even be illegal under your proposal, since all military service is voluntary within the scope of mandatory 'national service' with several non-military alternatives."

"At last; the wheat from the chaff, the point! I believe a slight alteration to the definition should close the loophole I see here, but you needn't fear losing the policy, unless it serves as a mechanism to press certain classes into the military as their only viable path. Assuming good faith in the policy in question, the military service remains optional, and thus would not fit the definition."

"Opposed. Previous statements of strong opposition were due to a misunderstanding of the proposal's applicability to Juansonian practices, and will be retracted or amended where possible."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

Second Sovereignty wrote:

Juansonia wrote:"It's a shame that you're trying to portray me as an idiot. The problem is that you claimed that the practice which I described (a simple 'mandatory service' requirement with non-military options available to all citizens) was illegal under extant WA law. However, a quick look into WA law on the matter showed otherwise. You didn't have to make the claim that it was illegal under extant law. This would have been purely a matter of ideological differences if you simply said that it would be prohibited by your proposal. But you couldn't help yourself, and now you are being confronted with your mistake."

Raxes chitters brightly, utterly unfazed by the growing hostility. "Well aren't you aggressive. Do you assume the worst of everyone you meet, or is it something to do with my species? Perhaps you should consult a social therapist; I can put in a recommendation with your government, if you would like. Regardless, I'm not attempting to portray you as anything, I assure you, but you are free to make of yourself whatever you like."

"The agression has nothing to do with your species or anything of that sort; it was simply an irrational response to percieved malice. At that moment, I failed to recall Hanlon's Razor, and that error has already cut into my flesh."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Juansonia wrote:"So the practice wouldn't even be illegal under your proposal, since all military service is voluntary within the scope of mandatory 'national service' with several non-military alternatives."

"At last; the wheat from the chaff, the point! I believe a slight alteration to the definition should close the loophole I see here, but you needn't fear losing the policy, unless it serves as a mechanism to press certain classes into the military as their only viable path. Assuming good faith in the policy in question, the military service remains optional, and thus would not fit the definition."

"That resolves our concerns on the matter. Any remaining opposition is unrelated to Juansonian interests regarding the subject matter."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Juansonia wrote:"The agression has nothing to do with your species or anything of that sort; it was simply an irrational response to percieved malice. At that moment, I failed to recall Hanlon's Razor, and that error has already cut into my flesh."

"The open assumption of 'stupidity' seems almost as hostile as assuming malice."

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

"Pardon me, but I would like to remind everyone to remain civil please. I was also hoping that I could maybe get an answer or a response from the author of the resolution on my question and/or statement if that would be possible?"

Lesbias wrote:"Pardon me, but I would like to remind everyone to remain civil please. I was also hoping that I could maybe get an answer or a response from the author of the resolution on my question and/or statement if that would be possible?"

"Oh, I do apologize for not responding sooner; something must be off with the translators..."

Lesbias wrote:"The People's Republic of Lesbias can agree with most of this resolution, however what it is meant by 'Defines Forced Service as any law, policy, or other legal mechanism that compels, coerces, or otherwise requires military service, whether in combat or non-combat roles, or which punishes rejection of such service,' ? What practices does compel include? Could providing benefits for serving count as compulsion? Lesbias holds that the phrase compels or coerces is too nebulous of a phrase and strongly recommends a change or assigning definitions to the terms."

"Hm, I can see your confusion; we will prove a more clear definition in the next revision of the draft."

Second Sovereignty wrote:

Lesbias wrote:"Pardon me, but I would like to remind everyone to remain civil please. I was also hoping that I could maybe get an answer or a response from the author of the resolution on my question and/or statement if that would be possible?"

"Oh, I do apologize for not responding sooner; something must be off with the translators..."

"I understand completely, happens from time to time don't worry."

Second Sovereignty wrote:

Lesbias wrote:"The People's Republic of Lesbias can agree with most of this resolution, however what it is meant by 'Defines Forced Service as any law, policy, or other legal mechanism that compels, coerces, or otherwise requires military service, whether in combat or non-combat roles, or which punishes rejection of such service,' ? What practices does compel include? Could providing benefits for serving count as compulsion? Lesbias holds that the phrase compels or coerces is too nebulous of a phrase and strongly recommends a change or assigning definitions to the terms."

"Hm, I can see your confusion; we will prove a more clear definition in the next revision of the draft."

"Thank you, I look forward to seeing the second draft."

- Leonardas Pilypas; Delegate of the People's Republic of Lesbias

"Barfleur cannot support this proposal. We agree that conscription can absolutely be abused by dictators and by even well-meaning governments than nonetheless have the effect of throwing their people into the proverbial meat-grinder. But, while that is certainly something worthy of international attention, we fail to see how banning conscription even in cases where the national defense absolutely requires it will do any good. In all probability, the effect of this proposal becoming law will be the subjugation of small yet hitherto independent nations beneath the jackboots of imperialists and assorted tinpots."

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 Magecastle:

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?

Simone Republic wrote:What happens if your town has been blown to pieces, all your family members including children have been raped, tortured and killed and torn to pieces, and your neighbours are fighting invaders with machine guns? Is it morally acceptable for you to sit at home and play Candy Crush Saga?

Raxes clicked impassively; "I'm, not entirely sure what crushing candies has to do with anything, but a moral obligation does not necessarily translate into a legal obligation; moreover, and especially when in such dire circumstances, avoiding the conflict, as for example, a refugee, is a perfectly justifiable action.

Allow me to reply with a somewhat more realistic hypothetical:
You are a civilian, with no military training or desire for such things, you have a life, work, family - dear partners and children, plans for the future, et-cetera, - and one day, your country finds itself at war. Let's say it was the subject of aggression. The war goes poorly, people are dying, cities are being bombed as the military withdraws into them. One day, a pair of Soldiers come to your door; you are handed a rifle and told that you are now a Conscript, and you are to march down the road and face the approaching tanks. What if you refuse? You don't want to die, you have no desire to kill; you, quite understandably, would prefer to get away from this war, with your loved ones intact and safe. That, the Soldiers tell you, would be treason. More than treason, in fact, it would be service of the enemy, and they are under strict orders to kill or capture treasonists and enemy assets; you are at war after all, and wartime is no time for games or pretensions of rights and decency. And of course, your family, your children, they would all be under suspicion, possibly guilty of treason themselves; how could those who were so close to the Enemy ever be trusted? Whatever happens to them, well, you can be assured that as enemies of the state, they deserve it.

Is that morally acceptable? Is it right to imprison or even kill someone for the great crime of refusing to partake in war? Is it right to gather up the unprepared populace and shove them in front of the guns so as to buy a little more time for the professional soldiers or the government's leaders? Are you, - yourself, not the man in the hypothetical, - prepared, right now, today, this very second, to be pressed into service on the front line of a war, without so much as a beggars choice in the matter?"

Second Sovereignty wrote:

Simone Republic wrote:What happens if your town has been blown to pieces, all your family members including children have been raped, tortured and killed and torn to pieces, and your neighbours are fighting invaders with machine guns? Is it morally acceptable for you to sit at home and play Candy Crush Saga?

Raxes clicked impassively; "I'm, not entirely sure what crushing candies has to do with anything, but a moral obligation does not necessarily translate into a legal obligation; moreover, and especially when in such dire circumstances, avoiding the conflict, as for example, a refugee, is a perfectly justifiable action.

Allow me to reply with a somewhat more realistic hypothetical:
You are a civilian, with no military training or desire for such things, you have a life, work, family - dear partners and children, plans for the future, et-cetera, - and one day, your country finds itself at war. Let's say it was the subject of aggression. The war goes poorly, people are dying, cities are being bombed as the military withdraws into them. One day, a pair of Soldiers come to your door; you are handed a rifle and told that you are now a Conscript, and you are to march down the road and face the approaching tanks. What if you refuse? You don't want to die, you have no desire to kill; you, quite understandably, would prefer to get away from this war, with your loved ones intact and safe. That, the Soldiers tell you, would be treason. More than treason, in fact, it would be service of the enemy, and they are under strict orders to kill or capture treasonists and enemy assets; you are at war after all, and wartime is no time for games or pretensions of rights and decency. And of course, your family, your children, they would all be under suspicion, possibly guilty of treason themselves; how could those who were so close to the Enemy ever be trusted? Whatever happens to them, well, you can be assured that as enemies of the state, they deserve it.

Is that morally acceptable? Is it right to imprison or even kill someone for the great crime of refusing to partake in war? Is it right to gather up the unprepared populace and shove them in front of the guns so as to buy a little more time for the professional soldiers or the government's leaders? Are you, - yourself, not the man in the hypothetical, - prepared, right now, today, this very second, to be pressed into service on the front line of a war, without so much as a beggars choice in the matter?"

Yes I am prepared to grab a machine gun and fight. By the way I am also a gun owner and I have had some basic arms training.