[DRAFT] Global Warfare Act

[Traxphoda]

The world assembly would like to enact the Global warfare act.

Article 1- Warfare Rules
1. A country who wants to engage in warfare must declare before sending forces.
2. If a country who engages in warfare to cause damage must have a clear motive.

Article 2- Motives
1. A country who wants to attack another must have clear motives.
2. A country who want to take land must declare that motive publicly.
3. If a country does not have a clear motive they can be held accountable for all damages.

Article 3- Resolution
The global warfare act will in force all war to be fought on a more equal playing field by give the other country time to prepare before the first wave. A country only has to tell them that war has started once in a war.
The WA can discuss whether or not a country statement is good or too vague.

[Kshemarashtram]

Kinda beats the point of a war, doesn't it? Why should a country be obligated to notify their enemy of their moves, give them a fair chance to win, or to "equalise" the playing field? I'm fairly certain countries fight wars with the intention of winning them.

[Traxphoda]

All you have to do is tell them they are in war with them

[Vatafishalalalalala]

I feel as if it is too vague. Declare before sending forces is for all assaults or just a simple "hello im going to war with you." Giving them a fair chance to win? What do you mean by that?

[Traxphoda]

I feel as if it is too vague. Declare before sending forces is for all assaults or just a simple "hello im going to war with you." Giving them a fair chance to win? What do you mean by that?

I will edit that

[Kshemarashtram]

All you have to do is tell them they are in war with them

Bah, fair enough.

But what about Article 3?:

Article 3- Resolution
The global warfare act will in force all war to be fought on a more equal playing field.
The WA can make all decisions for disputes between countries that engage in war that accept this proposal.

How would this act "equalise" the playing field, and why should countries be bothered to do so if their intention is to win the war?
Also, countries may adopt this resolution but still wish for many of their disputes to be resolved by mutual diplomatic efforts. Why should the WA have the authority to make "all decisions" pertaining to those disputes?

Also, regarding this clause:

A country who want to take land must declare that motive publicly.

Bah, it seems reasonable to have such a convention, but we know no country will openly admit to the motive of taking land merely for the sake of taking land. They will just say something like "pre-emptive self-defense" or "for civilising the savages"

[Traxphoda]

All you have to do is tell them they are in war with them

Bah, fair enough.

But what about Article 3?:

Article 3- Resolution
The global warfare act will in force all war to be fought on a more equal playing field.
The WA can make all decisions for disputes between countries that engage in war that accept this proposal.

How would this act "equalise" the playing field, and why should countries be bothered to do so if their intention is to win the war?
Also, countries may adopt this resolution but still wish for many of their disputes to be resolved by mutual diplomatic efforts. Why should the WA have the authority to make "all decisions" pertaining to those disputes?

Also, regarding this clause:

A country who want to take land must declare that motive publicly.

Bah, it seems reasonable to have such a convention, but we know no country will openly admit to the motive of taking land merely for the sake of taking land. They will just say something like "pre-emptive self-defense" or "for civilising the savages"

It make the other country have time to prepare.
They can say other things but if the WA finds that it is not a good motive they can hold the country accountable for all damages.

[Fortis Virtute]

A tad bit to go over here.. let's begin with my totally right and valid opinions! (/sarcasm of course)

2. If a country who engages in warfare to cause damage must have a clear motive.

Article 2- Motives
1. A country who wants to attack another must have clear motives.

These seem like the same thing to me, I think Article 2 section 1 can be removed and it would read the same.

Also, Is Article 2 attempting to define motives? If so, what are justifiable clear motives? This needs to be defined further for this legislation to have any chance in going past the drafting stage, in my humble opinion.

3. If a country does not have a clear motive they can be held accountable for all damages.

Again, very vague due to no clear definition of a "clear motive" or the expectation of what a clear motive is, and I think that vagueness will create problems long term. What could be a clear motive for my nation could be different than another nations. Assuming you can actually fairly define clear motives, which I think would be a challenge.

Article 3- Resolution
The global warfare act will in force all war to be fought on a more equal playing field by give the other country time to prepare before the first wave. A country only has to tell them that war has started once in a war.

So... this forces all wars to be fought on an equal playing field by giving the other country time to prepare? But all the other nation has to do is declare war? What is the time limit here? How long before any planned attack does a country have to "warn" their enemy? Taking aside the fact that wars are often fought and won with the element of surprise, this gives no structure outside of "you have to tell them!" And once could argue that bombing a military facility is telling the other nation you are now at war.

Without a clear timeframe of warning, a nation could warn the other 1 minute in advance and claim that is adequate time per this legislation, and their would be no real way of arguing against that.

[The Crusader Kings]

]

“The world assembly would like to enact the Global warfare act.”... No. Flat no. Clean this up please.

“1. A country who wants to engage in warfare must declare before sending forces.” Request denied. If I want to invade somebody, you can’t say no.
“2. If a country who engages in warfare to cause damage must have a clear motive.” I want their land! What more motive do you need?!

“1. A country who wants to attack another must have clear motives.” Repeat of the above sentence.

“2. A country who want to take land must declare that motive publicly.” Or they could just take the land.

“3. If a country does not have a clear motive they can be held accountable for all damages.” So if I say I want to kill everyone, I’m not liable for the damages?!

“The global warfare act will in force(You mean ENFORCE?) all war to be fought on a more equal playing field by give the other country time to prepare before the first wave. A country only has to tell them that war has started once in a war.”... What the FUCK is this? Why do I need to give me enemy time to prepare for my invasion?

“The WA can discuss whether or not a country statement is good or too vague.”... ah yes. I don’t want to be invaded, so I say their declaration isn’t OK, so I don’t get invaded.

Disrespectfully, this is shit(Not the author, but the proposal, to be clear). To the sword with this filth.

Good day(or night) to you all.