[PASSED] Rights of Neutral States

[Frisbeeteria]

Rights of Neutral States

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Sciongrad

The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING that it is a right of states to refrain from conflicts that do not directly involve them,

BELIEVING that it is a responsibility of this Assembly to uphold this right,

And to this end resolves;

1. The term "neutral state" shall be defined as any state that has formally declared a policy of non-involvement, either in a specific conflict that involves one or more other states or in all such conflicts beyond its own borders (as 'general neutrality'), that has not participated in a relevant current conflict, and is in full compliance with the obligations of neutrals as listed in this resolution;
   
   
2. The term "belligerent" shall be defined as any state with armed forces involved in a relevant conflict;
   
   
3. The obligations of neutral states are as follows:
   
   1. The state shall not allow any belligerent’s forces to cross or remain within its lands, excepting as clause 5 of this resolution lists, to launch attacks from or through its territories, or to recruit therein, nor shall it be legal for its people to serve belligerents as mercenaries;
   2. The state may not perform any actions within or against belligerents that this resolution forbids belligerents to perform within or against neutrals, except that it may use reasonable force to repel belligerent forces that are violating its neutrality;
   3. The state must not sell or otherwise supply war materiel to a belligerent, or allow anybody within its borders to do so, or allow its agencies or businesses to transport war materiel for belligerents, or (except as any other WA law specifies) allow war materiel for belligerents to cross its territories;
4. The rights of neutral states are as follows:
   
   1. Belligerents may not declare war or commit any acts of war against states neutral in the relevant wars, and no WA member may do so at all to states that follow ‘general neutrality’;
   2. Belligerents may not send armed forces into or across neutrals’ territories, except as this or another WA resolution specifically allows;
   3. Belligerents must not conscript people with a neutral’s nationality into their service, unless that neutral state agreed before the war that those people also hold the belligerent’s nationality;
   4. Belligerents must not interfere with neutrals’ international trade, except as any other WA law specifically allows;
   5. Belligerents must not compel prisoners of war (POWs) to enter a neutral’s territory with the express intent that those people be caught and interned therein;
5. The following individuals or groups of belligerent states have the right of free passage within the territories of neutral states and vice versa; furthermore, any states trespassed upon have the right and duty to intern any trespassing personnel until either the conflict ends or both sides agree to their release:
   
   1. Accidental strays who intend on leaving immediately;
   2. Warships that were in serious danger of wreck, for a reasonable time to have their own crew make repairs to improve seaworthiness (but not to improve specifically combat-related systems);
   3. As members of diplomatic missions, within reason;
   4. Casualties or POWs being repatriated with both belligerent sides’ consent;
   5. Escaped POWs;
6. Member nations that form military alliances with any non-member nation must make full compliance with the provisions of this resolution by that ally a term of the alliance.

The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING that it is a right of states to refrain from a conflict that does not directly involve them,

BELIEVING that it is a responsibility of this assembly to recognize such a right,

And to this end resolves;

1. The term "neutral state" shall be defined as a state that has formally declared non-involvement regarding a specific conflict existing between two or more polities, or as a blanket policy of non-involvement in all instances of armed conflict;
   
   
2. Recognition of neutral states shall be contingent upon their compliance with the duties of neutral states, which shall include the following:
   
   
   1. Neutral states may not intentionally support, abet, or harbor the military forces of belligerents engaged in a conflict from which they have declared neutrality,
      
      • Neutral states may provide emergency assistance to warships and warplanes of belligerent nations, such as allowing belligerent warships/warplanes to use harbors/airfields in the neutral state in order to perform emergency repairs or conduct emergency refueling, provided that the belligerent warship/warplane leave neutral territory within twenty-four (24) hours.
   2. Neutral states may not obstruct or inhibit the forces of a belligerent engaged in a conflict from which they have declared neutrality, through any means, except where such actions are undertaken in order to prevent violation of that state's neutrality,
   3. Neutral states may not attempt to influence the course of a conflict from which they have declared neutrality, through any means,
   4. Neutral states may not engage in combat with any belligerent nations in a conflict from which they have declared neutrality;
   
   
3. States that have formally declared neutrality, and are in compliance with the aforementioned terms shall be granted the following protections:
   
   
   1. Neutral states shall not be invaded or occupied, nor shall their territory be used by belligerent nations for any purpose, except where permitted under Section 2(a)(i) of this Act,
      
      • Belligerent forces shall not be permitted to use neutral territory under Section 2(a)(i) of this Act if they are using neutral territory in order to gain a tactical advantage over an enemy force,
   2. Neutral states shall not be used as a means through whichmilitary personnel and/or war materiel belonging to belligerent nations are transported,
      
      • "War materiel" includes, and is not limited to, armaments, munitions, and goods of a distinct military nature,
      • Goods not of a distinct military nature, including, but not limited to, foodstuffs, clothing, and fuels, are to be regarded as contraband and may be impounded by neutral nations if the belligerent party cannot prove that such goods are not explicitly earmarked for use by military forces,
      • Belligerent military personnel may be transported through neutral states for the purposes of accredited diplomatic missions or humanitarian missions (including the repatriation of casualties and prisoners of war),
   3. Neutral states are entitled to undisturbed commerce with non-belligerents, and are entitled to engage in commerce with belligerents so long as the goods traded do not influence the outcome of the conflict,
   4. Neutral states shall not be used by belligerent parties for the purposes of housing prisoners of war, nor shall belligerents compel prisoners of war to enter neutral territory with the express intent that those prisoners be apprehended and interned by the neutral state; aside from this scenario, members of belligerent armed forces entering neutral territory, whether by accident or by their own free will, remain subject to internment,
   5. Neutral states shall not have their citizens recruited or interned by belligerent nations to serve in a military capacity for any reason;
   
   
4. Neutral states may ruse force against belligerent parties in order to prevent said parties from violating the state's neutrality, and shall not have their neutral status compromised;
   
   
5. Nations that have participated in a conflict, either through direct combat, or through the actions detailed in clause two, may not declare neutrality from it;
   
   
6. Neutral nations that attempt to arbitrate a conflict through diplomatic means, with the consent of all belligerent nations, shall not be considered to have breached the provisions of this article, nor shall neutral nations that attempt to provide humanitarian aid.

[/list]

Co-Author: [nation=short+noflag]The Two Jerseys[/nation]

[Maklohi Vai]

Maklohi Vai supports this resolution on enough angles to vote for it if it comes to vote, but we have a point that we feel could improve the resolution. The first preambulatory clause "REAFFIRMING that it is a right of nations to refrain from a conflict that does not directly involve them," is correct, as Maklohi Vai views it, in its statement. However, Maklohi Vai believes that nations who do not engage in a conflict are not necessarily willing to declare their formal neutrality. They may wish to remain as placid states, those who are neutral in every sense of the way, but make no movement to declare themselves neutral or even engage themselves at all with any aspect of the conflict. Maklohi Vai took this very path in 1904, when the neighboring nations of Siroy and Grazak engaged in hostilities. Maklohi Vai did not say, nor do, anything at all. There was no formal declaration of neutrality, nor any diplomatic involvement with the situation. Colloquially this would be referred to as neutral, but under your resolution's definition of a neutral state as one that makes a formal declaration of neutrality, this event from our past would not have kept us under the safety provisions that this resolution provides. Therefore, Maklohi Vai wishes to see a change in the wording of the resolution to expand the definition of neutrality to those nations who have not made a formal declaration. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

[Suevo-Prussia]

The term "neutral state" shall be defined as a nation that has formally declared neutrality regarding a specific conflict existing between two or more polities;

What about Nations that have declared a general neutrality, not specifically linked to any conflicts?

OOC: RL example would be Switzerland.

[Araraukar]

How is this anything other than saying "neutral states are neutral"? Silly proposal is silly.

[Sciongrad]

How is this anything other than saying "neutral states are neutral"? Silly proposal is silly.

Your Excellency, it may help if you read the proposal prior to commenting, because this proposal does more than merely declare that a neutral state is neutral.

The term "neutral state" shall be defined as a nation that has formally declared neutrality regarding a specific conflict existing between two or more polities;

What about Nations that have declared a general neutrality, not specifically linked to any conflicts?

OOC: RL example would be Switzerland.

A good point - I'll add something that addresses this concern in the next draft.

[Paper Flowers]

After a brief read through this draft two immediate concerns have sprung to mind:

1. Clause 3C, I would submit that nearly any goods traded could (potentially) affect the outcome of a conflict. If nothing else you are freeing up domestic industry within the nation to focus on the war effort. I would suggest that a truly neutral country would cease trading with the belligerents for the duration.

2. Clause 5, it seems to me that this is overly restrictive on the neutral nation. While I can understand the reasoning behind it I would submit that a conflict which escalates may cause a nation to re-evaluate its initial stance on a matter. While the original belligerents may be nothing to do with our nation it is possible that a war would expand to encompass our allies, at which point our hands are now tied and we are unable to assist them. Perhaps if some sort of notice period could be implemented so that a previously neutral nation must inform all parties that in <x> time they shall be revoking their declaration?

Ambassador Saunders

[Mesogirian WA Mission]

2. Clause 5, it seems to me that this is overly restrictive on the neutral nation. While I can understand the reasoning behind it I would submit that a conflict which escalates may cause a nation to re-evaluate its initial stance on a matter. While the original belligerents may be nothing to do with our nation it is possible that a war would expand to encompass our allies, at which point our hands are now tied and we are unable to assist them. Perhaps if some sort of notice period could be implemented so that a previously neutral nation must inform all parties that in <x> time they shall be revoking their declaration?

Ambassador Saunders

While I do agree that the prohibition against neutral nations choosing to alter their stance on a conflict, a defined time period is problematic, given the circumstances of war. Mandating a statement that "We're going to be at war with you in 96 hours" is just an invitation to pre-emptive attack on that nation.

[The Two Jerseys]

A relevant international issue before the General Assembly? Haven't seen one of those in a while...

Our delegation is taking our lunch break now, but we'll read this over later and give our opinion. Hopefully this will be something that we can support.

[Paper Flowers]

While I do agree that the prohibition against neutral nations choosing to alter their stance on a conflict, a defined time period is problematic, given the circumstances of war. Mandating a statement that "We're going to be at war with you in 96 hours" is just an invitation to pre-emptive attack on that nation.

I would suggest that to a certain extent the nation that had been previously neutral is not required to provide notice until they are prepared "We're going to be at war with you in 96 hours, oh and btw our army is already ready so attack us before then and we'll start early."

I suppose the main thing I'd want to avoid is a situation where the cancellation of neutrality came attached to a large explosive.

Ambassador Saunders

[Mesogirian WA Mission]

While I do agree that the prohibition against neutral nations choosing to alter their stance on a conflict, a defined time period is problematic, given the circumstances of war. Mandating a statement that "We're going to be at war with you in 96 hours" is just an invitation to pre-emptive attack on that nation.

I would suggest that to a certain extent the nation that had been previously neutral is not required to provide notice until they are prepared "We're going to be at war with you in 96 hours, oh and btw our army is already ready so attack us before then and we'll start early."

I suppose the main thing I'd want to avoid is a situation where the cancellation of neutrality came attached to a large explosive.

Ambassador Saunders

Why shouldn't it come attached to a large explosive?

[Bears Armed]

Hypothetical situation:
1. Nations A and B are at war.
2. Nation C declares its neutrality in that war.
3. Nation A then declares a separate war against nation C.
Perfectly legal, right?

[San Leggera]

I share similar concerns with Ambassador Saunders, especially regarding clause 5. What would happen if State A declared neutrality in a war between State B and State C; but then State B declared war on State D - an ally of State A - and State A wanted to help their allies?

~Ambassador Hardcastle

[Paper Flowers]

I suppose the main thing I'd want to avoid is a situation where the cancellation of neutrality came attached to a large explosive.

Ambassador Saunders

Why shouldn't it come attached to a large explosive?

I suppose my concern is for those nations genuinely interested in remaining neutral rather than the cowardly or the opportunistic who would use it as a smokescreen. Were it to be the case that declarations of neutrality were rendered meaningless through such tactics then it seems to remove the purpose of having them in the first place does it not?

Ambassador Saunders

[Glen-Rhodes]

How is this anything other than saying "neutral states are neutral"? Silly proposal is silly.

Neutrality is actually a very specific concept in international relations. It carries with it certain rights and responsibilities. First, a neutral state's territory is inviolable. Belligerents are not permitted to attack a neutral state, pass through it, whatever. As a consequence, neutral states are not permitted to allow troops to move through their territory, nor allow belligerents to station troops in their territory. Neutrality is different from non-belligerent status, which isn't actually existent in international law, in that a state does not need to be neutral to be a non-belligerent state.

The issues we have with this draft is that it is overly broad in the restrictions placed upon neutral states. 2a seems to forbid aiding and harboring the wounded and sick. Indeed, we make the case that neutral states, like all states, have the responsibility to take in the sick and wounded, along with prisoners of war who have escaped into their territory.

Additionally, this approach to neutrality assumes a land war. What about naval wars? For example, would a neutral state lose their status if they allow war ships to travel through their territorial waters or EEZs? This draft would say yes, but custom normally says no.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sciongrad]

1. Clause 3C, I would submit that nearly any goods traded could (potentially) affect the outcome of a conflict. If nothing else you are freeing up domestic industry within the nation to focus on the war effort. I would suggest that a truly neutral country would cease trading with the belligerents for the duration.

Need be, I'll adjust the wording to be more restrictive, but free trade is a right of sovereign nations, in my opinion, and don't I don't plan on making it a concession. Although you are correct - the current wording is vague.

2. Clause 5, it seems to me that this is overly restrictive on the neutral nation. While I can understand the reasoning behind it I would submit that a conflict which escalates may cause a nation to re-evaluate its initial stance on a matter. While the original belligerents may be nothing to do with our nation it is possible that a war would expand to encompass our allies, at which point our hands are now tied and we are unable to assist them. Perhaps if some sort of notice period could be implemented so that a previously neutral nation must inform all parties that in <x> time they shall be revoking their declaration?

My original concern was that opportunistic nations would swap between neutrality and belligerency in order to aid an ally, and then to prevent themselves from being retaliated against. However, after re-reading, I've come to the conclusion that this is adequately covered in clause 6. As such, I'm inclined to remove this clause altogether, as it serves little purpose. Unless, of course, there is a use for it that I'm missing, in which case I'd gladly reconsider.

Hypothetical situation:
1. Nations A and B are at war.
2. Nation C declares its neutrality in that war.
3. Nation A then declares a separate war against nation C.
Perfectly legal, right?

My apologies - a glaring oversight that I should have caught. I'll adjust the resolution to reflect your criticism in the next draft.

How is this anything other than saying "neutral states are neutral"? Silly proposal is silly.

Neutrality is actually a very specific concept in international relations. It carries with it certain rights and responsibilities. First, a neutral state's territory is inviolable. Belligerents are not permitted to attack a neutral state, pass through it, whatever. As a consequence, neutral states are not permitted to allow troops to move through their territory, nor allow belligerents to station troops in their territory. Neutrality is different from non-belligerent status, which isn't actually existent in international law, in that a state does not need to be neutral to be a non-belligerent state.

The issues we have with this draft is that it is overly broad in the restrictions placed upon neutral states. 2a seems to forbid aiding and harboring the wounded and sick. Indeed, we make the case that neutral states, like all states, have the responsibility to take in the sick and wounded, along with prisoners of war who have escaped into their territory.

Additionally, this approach to neutrality assumes a land war. What about naval wars? For example, would a neutral state lose their status if they allow war ships to travel through their territorial waters or EEZs? This draft would say yes, but custom normally says no.

- Dr. B. Castro

Insightful criticism, ambassador; I'll make the necessary revisions in the next draft.

[The Two Jerseys]

OK, we've read the proposal and have some thoughts. Comments are in green, edits in red.

Rights of Neutral States

Category: Political Stability | Strength: Mild| Proposed by: Sciongrad

The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING that it is a right of nations to refrain from a conflict that does not directly involve them,

BELIEVING that it is a responsibility of this assembly to recognize such a right,

And to this end resolves;

1. The term "neutral state" shall be defined as a nation that has formally declared neutrality non-involvement regarding a specific conflict existing between two or more polities, or that has declared a blanket policy of non-involvement in all armed conflicts; It's generally advisable not to use the word being defined in its own definition. The second bit is for Suevo-Prussia's suggestion re: nations with a general neutrality policy.
   
   
2. Recognition of neutral states shall be contingent upon their compliance with the duties of neutral states, which shall include the following:
   
   
   1. Neutral states may not intentionally support, abet, or harbor the military forces of belligerents, and/or the military allies of such belligerents, engaged in a conflict from which they have declared neutrality, If the allies are non-belligerents, there's really nothing preventing a neutral state from providing them with support.
      
      1. Neutral states may provide emergency assistance to warships and warplanes of belligerent nations, such as allowing belligerent warships/warplanes to use harbors/airfields in the neutral state in order to perform emergency repairs or conduct emergency refueling, provided that the belligerent warship/warplane leave neutral territory within twenty-four (24) hours. Customarily, belligerent warships may put into neutral ports but must leave within 24 hours.
   2. Neutral states may not obstruct or inhibit the forces of a belligerent, and/or the military allies of such belligerents engaged in a conflict from which they have declared neutrality, through any means, except where such actions are undertaken in order to prevent violation of that state's neutrality, Another customary rule.
   3. Neutral states may not attempt to influence the course of a conflict from in which they have declared neutrality, in the favor of one belligerent side over another, through any means, This is to allow neutrals to facilitate peace talks and such.
   4. Neutral states may not engage in combat with any belligerent nations in a conflict from which they have declared neutrality; This really goes without saying.
   
   
3. States that have formally declared neutrality, and are in compliance with the aforementioned terms, shall be (extra space) granted the following protections:
   
   
   1. Neutral states shall not be invaded or occupied, nor shall their territory be used by belligerent nations for any purpose, except where permitted under Section 2(a)(i) of this Act,
      
      1. Belligerent forces shall not be permitted to use neutral territory under Section 2(a)(i) of this Act if they are using neutral territory in order to gain a tactical advantage over an enemy force.
   2. Neutral states shall not be used as a means through which supplies, armaments, munitions, military personnel (excepting wounded or deceased individuals), or other such war materials or personnel military personnel and/or war materiel belonging to belligerent nations are transported,
      
      1. "War materiel" includes, and is not limited to, armaments, munitions, and goods of a distinct military nature, such as barbed wire and armor plate.
      2. Goods not of a distinct military nature, including, but not limited to, foodstuffs, clothing, and fuels, are to be regarded as contraband and may be impounded by neutral nations if the belligerent party cannot prove that such goods are not explicitly earmarked for use by military forces. Those are legitimate civilian goods as well as military supplies, so transporting them may or may not be legal, depending on their destination.
         
      3. Belligerent military personnel may be transported through neutral states for the purposes of accredited diplomatic missions or humanitarian missions (including the repatriation of casualties and prisoners of war).
   3. Neutral states are entitled to undisturbed commerce with non-belligerents, and are entitled to engage in commerce with belligerents so long as the goods traded do not influence the outcome of the conflict,
   4. Neutral states shall not be coerced into interning or detaining prisoners of war in their territory without their uncoerced consent used by belligerent parties for the purposes of housing prisoners of war, nor shall belligerents compel prisoners of war to enter neutral territory with the express intent that those prisoners be apprehended and interned by the neutral state; aside from this scenario, members of belligerent armed forces entering neutral territory, whether by accident or by their own free will, remain subject to internment; Reworded that so it specifically bans the practice, rather than implying that they can get away with it through coercion.
   
   
4. Neutral states may resist belligerents that have breached the aforementioned terms use force against belligerent parties in order to prevent said parties from violating the state's neutrality, and shall not have their neutral status compromised for doing so; Clarifying that the neutrals can shoot first if provoked.
   
   
5. Neutral states may not withdraw their declaration of neutrality, nor may they breach the obligations of a neutral nation for the duration of the conflict from which they have declared neutrality; Not a good idea. Neutrals can join a war if they want to.
   
   
6. Nations that have participated in a conflict, either through direct combat, or through the actions detailed in clause two, may not declare neutrality from it; Not a good idea either. Belligerents can withdraw from wars in the middle of them if they want to.
   
   
7. Neutral nations that attempt to arbitrate a conflict through diplomatic means, with the consent of all belligerent nations, shall not be considered to have breached the provisions of this article, nor shall neutral nations that attempt to provide humanitarian aid. Struck that consent bit, that would prevent third parties from even offering to mediate a cease-fire.

Please don't take all the red ink the wrong way. We like the idea of this act, but we just want to make sure that all the loopholes are closed before it goes to vote.

[Paper Flowers]

1. Clause 3C, I would submit that nearly any goods traded could (potentially) affect the outcome of a conflict. If nothing else you are freeing up domestic industry within the nation to focus on the war effort. I would suggest that a truly neutral country would cease trading with the belligerents for the duration.

Need be, I'll adjust the wording to be more restrictive, but free trade is a right of sovereign nations, in my opinion, and don't I don't plan on making it a concession. Although you are correct - the current wording is vague.

Of course there's certainly nothing stopping you from keeping the current wording and it does it's job, however it never hurts to get our policy out in the open to begin with and based on the reasoning given our military would treat any trading with a belligerent as a violation of the clause in question and would take action appropriate to the situation.

Ambassador Saunders

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"We would like to point out that we intend to stay neutral in any wars possibly happening between any two nations. We will defend our selves if we are attacked, but we would not continue aggression beyond protecting our selves."

[Sciongrad]

Alright, updated to reflect the comments of the ambassadors that have commented. The length is too much for my taste, and that formatting is an eyesore, so I'll work on that as soon as possible. Keep up the comments!

[Glen-Rhodes]

The term "neutral state" shall be defined as a nation that has formally declared neutrality non-involvement regarding a specific conflict existing between two or more polities, or that has declared a blanket policy of non-involvement in all armed conflicts; It's generally advisable not to use the word being defined in its own definition. The second bit is for Suevo-Prussia's suggestion re: nations with a general neutrality policy.

I would caution against this change. Grammatically, the term being defined is "neutral state," so it is permissible to use the word "neutral" in the definition. Politically, "non-involvement" is not a well-developed term. On its face, non-involvement seems to mean the same thing as non-belligerent. A state may still provide material support to a belligerent without being "involved" in the conflict. Additionally, the use of "polities" is non-standard, and I'm not really sure what the goal of using that term actually is. The addition of covering "blanket policies" of neutrality is a non-issue for us, although we would prefer the more legalistic terminology of "permanent neutrality."

1. Neutral states may provide emergency assistance to warships and warplanes of belligerent nations, such as allowing belligerent warships/warplanes to use harbors/airfields in the neutral state in order to perform emergency repairs or conduct emergency refueling, provided that the belligerent warship/warplane leave neutral territory within twenty-four (24) hours. Customarily, belligerent warships may put into neutral ports but must leave within 24 hours.

These are decent additions, although less cumbersome wording is needed. This goes for the rest of the changes until the edits to section 4.

Neutral states may resist belligerents that have breached the aforementioned terms use force against belligerent parties in order to prevent said parties from violating the state's neutrality, and shall not have their neutral status compromised for doing so; Clarifying that the neutrals can shoot first if provoked.

We have considerable concerns with this wording. The World Assembly should never authorize preventive strikes. Preemptive strikes are another matter, but not one to be settled here, as the doctrine needs much more space to be fully fleshed out. The original wording is highly preferred.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Araraukar]

OOC: It's way too early for me, so I'm sorry if I just didn't notice where these questions have already been answered.

IC: So what exactly is protecting these neutral nations from belligerent nations, other than the international community saying "naughty"? The WA does not and cannot have a military force of its own. I do realize that clause #4 says they're allowed to defend themselves, but if the belligerent nation then declares war on them, where exactly goes the line? When does the neutral nation lose its neutrality, if it's practically involved in a full-scale war?

[Gingeyland]

OOC: With a few carefully written edits, we would support this Act, such as the ones "The Two Jerseys" has listed above. But for right now, my nation moves to have the CURRENT proposal:

REJECTED

[Glen-Rhodes]

So what exactly is protecting these neutral nations from belligerent nations, other than the international community saying "naughty"?

OOC: This is actually a much deeper question than you may realize. You're basically asking what mechanism enforces international law. The laws of war and humanitarian law are not easily enforceable, unlike say international environmental regulations. This is because, while environmental regulations often pit the state against industry (with the state obviously having more power), laws like these try to regulate states themselves. It's very difficult to regulate states under an anarchic system. The international system is considered an anarchy because there's no central governing structure, at least none with a standing military capable of forcing all other states to do things.

But it's not impossible. The simplest answer I can give you is that these laws are self-executing. They represents norms. The very nature of norms is that they are these abstract ideals that states abide by simply because it's considered appropriate to abide by them, or because following the norms serves some interest of the state. I think you'd be more convinced by the interests argument than the appropriateness argument. So, a state would follow the rules of this resolution because it would want others to respect its neutrality in the future. If State A violates State B's neutrality in War 1, then there's no reason why State C can't violate State A's neutrality in War 2. So if State A wants to be able to claim neutrality in War 2, it will respect the neutrality of State B in War 1.

I do realize that clause #4 says they're allowed to defend themselves, but if the belligerent nation then declares war on them, where exactly goes the line? When does the neutral nation lose its neutrality, if it's practically involved in a full-scale war?

If a state does declare war on a neutral state, then the neutral state can defend itself without losing neutrality. I think the difficult with understanding why that is arises because of how war has changed since 1904 (when the concept of neutrality was first codified in the Hague Conventions). Nowadays, wars are almost always defensive. But back then, wars of aggression were still a thing. So there was a clear difference between a state defending itself through warfare, and a state acting as an aggressor. An aggressor could never claim the rights of neutrality.

Perhaps we can be a little creative here and put in some minimum conditions for when a state is still allowed to claim neutrality, while being engaged in a defensive war. We can say that the defense measures should be the minimum measures necessary to effectively defend themselves. This means that they could push back an army, but they can't go engage in regime change or gain territory, spoils or anything like that. If the international community considers the measures to go beyond pure defense, then the state would no longer be able to enjoy the rights of neutrality. Again, this would be enforced through the normative mechanism.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

You're basically asking what mechanism enforces international law.

Exactly why I asked, since that has some not-so-subtle differences between RL and NS. For one thing, in RL all the nations cohabit the same planet and are dependant on each other for trade, resources, etc. In NS not nearly every nation exists in the same universe (to allow for fantasy nations), and while I realize same universe is kinda essential for waging war, the international community isn't as tightly-knit as in RL.

In RL you misbehave and you end up as North Korea v.2.0. In NS you misbehave and... well, they can try to get you condemned by the Security Council, but again, unless you've offered solid RP proof of intentionally breaking a lot of WA laws, they've got very little chance of getting that.

So there was a clear difference between a state defending itself through warfare, and a state acting as an aggressor.

As a RL reference, check Finland in WW2, it acted both as defender and aggressor during the course of the war.

This means that they could push back an army, but they can't go engage in regime change or gain territory, spoils or anything like that.

As long as "no spoils" doesn't mean they can't appropriate enemy resources (ammo, vehicles, etc.) the enemy may leave on their territory while retreating, that sounds more reasonable.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC post.

You're basically asking what mechanism enforces international law.

Exactly why I asked, since that has some not-so-subtle differences between RL and NS. For one thing, in RL all the nations cohabit the same planet and are dependant on each other for trade, resources, etc. In NS not nearly every nation exists in the same universe (to allow for fantasy nations), and while I realize same universe is kinda essential for waging war, the international community isn't as tightly-knit as in RL.

If you believe that the systems of real life cannot possibly apply to the WA universe, then I don't know what to tell you. You aren't going to get a better answer. What I described above is the only way humans have ever conducted international relations.

In RL you misbehave and you end up as North Korea v.2.0. In NS you misbehave and... well, they can try to get you condemned by the Security Council, but again, unless you've offered solid RP proof of intentionally breaking a lot of WA laws, they've got very little chance of getting that.

That's a function of lack of roleplay and lack of realism from those who do roleplay, rather than a result of differences between the WA universe and real life.

So there was a clear difference between a state defending itself through warfare, and a state acting as an aggressor.

As a RL reference, check Finland in WW2, it acted both as defender and aggressor during the course of the war.

I don't think Finland was actually ever neutral in World War II. The neutral powers were Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Span and Portugal. Finland didn't send troops to Europe, but I don't think it actually claimed neutrality. If I recall correctly, Finland and Russia went to war a couple times, and Finland was the aggressor in at least one of them.

I can't really think of any neutral states, off the top of my head, that still fought defensive wars in WWII.

This means that they could push back an army, but they can't go engage in regime change or gain territory, spoils or anything like that.

As long as "no spoils" doesn't mean they can't appropriate enemy resources (ammo, vehicles, etc.) the enemy may leave on their territory while retreating, that sounds more reasonable.

That's a highly unlikely scenario. But either way, spoils are rewards gained through military victory. Materiel left behind when a belligerent (not "enemy") leaves doesn't really count.