[Submitted] Repeal Convention Against Heinous Crimes

[The Ice States]

This has now been submitted.

[Lieutenant Columbo]

Hey folks, this has been marked illegal for an Honest Mistake:

Honest mistake, veracity (mischaracterisation of GA 660's provisions: member nations are not prohibited from conscripting people to service in combat roles; mere assertion of CO status is insufficient and accepting CO claims after investigation does not make it a volunteer position).

That first bit I understand, having gone close over 660 now. I shouldn't simply say that it bans conscription for combat roles, because it doesn't. Rather, it bans the conscription of conscientious objectors for those roles. That's what I don't get, is that Secretaries Imperium Anglorum and Desmosthenes and Burke seem to think it doesn't do that, either. I'm curious what GenSec thinks 660 does do.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Hey folks, this has been marked illegal for an Honest Mistake:

Honest mistake, veracity (mischaracterisation of GA 660's provisions: member nations are not prohibited from conscripting people to service in combat roles; mere assertion of CO status is insufficient and accepting CO claims after investigation does not make it a volunteer position).

That first bit I understand, having gone close over 660 now. I shouldn't simply say that it bans conscription for combat roles, because it doesn't. Rather, it bans the conscription of conscientious objectors for those roles. That's what I don't get, is that Secretaries Imperium Anglorum and Desmosthenes and Burke seem to think it doesn't do that, either. I'm curious what GenSec thinks 660 does do.

GA 660 s 1 says that people can claim a bona fide conscientious objection from serving in a combat role. This is standard policy in most countries. The relevant portion here is "bona fide". That is what I mean when I say "mere assertion of CO status is insufficient".

A nation implementing GA 660 will naturally come into conflict between conscripting as many people as possible for as many roles as possible and following the law. If it rejects all CO claims as mala fide, it still end up in GA 440 hearings by the COs seeking vindication of their rights. If it accepts and rejects arbitrarily the same will happen for those rejected. If it accepts all of them without review then it will end up falling short on its conscription targets; this is RNT. What this implies is that there must be some rational mechanism to assess whether someone's CO claim is bona fide. This is what I mean by "accepting CO claims after investigation".

The last portion relates to how this implementation framework interacts with your proposal. It is specifically saying that in the inevitable world where people have hearings, glossed as investigations, of CO claims some will be rejected. Non-acceptance of some CO claims means that combat roles is not a volunteer position, which is my gloss of your claim that none in combat roles can be conscripted (since volunteer and conscription are opposites in this context).

All of this is then placed into a sparse and compact run-on sentence, which I can accept is difficult to parse.