[DRAFT]Limitiations On Conscription

by **Fauxia** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:08 pm

“I hope this isn’t as controversial as the last one, which I do plan to look over again, fyi.”

Limitations On Conscription

Category: Human Rights I Strength: Mild I Author: Fauxia

Acknowledging the demand for military conscription,

Recognizing that military roles that involve open combat are far more dangerous than roles that do not involve combat,

Cognizant that conscripted persons do not consent to their roles, yet are required to act in them,

Believing that those that do not consent to danger should have reasonable protection from it,

Wishing to satisfy the demand for conscription, while ensuring reasonable safety standards for conscripts in open combat,

The World Assembly,

1. Defines combat role and all variants thereof, for the purposes of this resolution, as the active participation in open warfare against an enemy,

2. Defines conscription and all variants thereof, for the purposes of this resolution, as the mandatory enlistment of a person into the armed forces,

3. Mandates that no nation, during times of peace, may conscript any person for combat roles for periods of time that exceed one year,

4. Prohibits member nations from conscripting any person under the age of majority for combat roles,

5. Requires that nations discharge conscripts in military roles with all possible haste, following the completion of the term,

6. Commands that all member states compensate all conscripts in combat roles in a just and generous fashion, in proportion to the military service given,

7. Forbids nations from conscripting criminals for combat roles as a means of punishment for crimes.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:17 pm

OOC: You should read the Military Freedom Act.

by **Fauxia** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:19 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: You should read the Military Freedom Act.

OOC: Funny, Tinfect and IA are telling me the same... should probs do that

by **Separatist Peoples** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:19 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: You should read the Military Freedom Act.
OOC: Funny, Tinfect and IA are telling me the same... should probs do that

OOC: I know. Now there's a forum-based record.

by **Tinfect** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:22 pm

Fauxia wrote:Does one year make sense (by itself, not whether it is a fair restriction?) Can it be made to mean 10 years in some nations somehow? Thanks.

OOC:
Depends on the length of one's year/days. Mars has 668, 24-and-a-half hour days, I run the Imperium with a 427, 22 Hour days. I would advise against setting hard limits on time to begin with, but it shouldn't cause too much of a problem here, as redefining a year purely to keep Conscripts on the line longer is not something any reasonable nation would do, due to the sheer difficulties it would cause with... virtually everything else.

by **Fauxia** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:25 pm

Tinfect wrote:
Fauxia wrote:Does one year make sense (by itself, not whether it is a fair restriction?) Can it be made to mean 10 years in some nations somehow? Thanks.

OOC:
Depends on the length of one's year/days. Mars has 668, 24-and-a-half hour days, I run the Imperium with a 427, 22 Hour days. I would advise against setting hard limits on time to begin with, but it shouldn't cause too much of a problem here, as redefining a year purely to keep Conscripts on the line longer is not something any reasonable nation would do, due to the sheer difficulties it would cause with... virtually everything else.

OOC: Well, seeing as how the MFA I believe limits it to six months though...

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Fauxia wrote:OOC: Funny, Tinfect and IA are telling me the same... should probs do that

OOC: I know. Now there's a forum-based record.

OOC: I ACTUALLY READ A RESOLUTION! :clap:

(I do read them, actually)

by **Desmosthenes and Burke** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:30 pm

Tinfect wrote:
Fauxia wrote:Does one year make sense (by itself, not whether it is a fair restriction?) Can it be made to mean 10 years in some nations somehow? Thanks.

OOC:
Depends on the length of one's year/days. Mars has 668, 24-and-a-half hour days, I run the Imperium with a 427, 22 Hour days. I would advise against setting hard limits on time to begin with, but it shouldn't cause too much of a problem here, as redefining a year purely to keep Conscripts on the line longer is not something any reasonable nation would do, due to the sheer difficulties it would cause with... virtually everything else.

OOC: Indeed. The easier work around would be to maintain a constant declaration of war against someone (say Bigtopia). It is also a ridiculous thing to do, but would be a hell of a lot less disruptive.

Having read the military freedom act: any of the lines about conscientious objectors is preempted or at least satisfactorily covered. Otherwise, I think it is a good starting point.

IC: "We like the idea in general. When the good ambassador is ready, we have some substantive comments to make."

by **Fauxia** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:33 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Tinfect wrote:
OOC:
Depends on the length of one's year/days. Mars has 668, 24-and-a-half hour days, I run the Imperium with a 427, 22 Hour days. I would advise against setting hard limits on time to begin with, but it shouldn't cause too much of a problem here, as redefining a year purely to keep Conscripts on the line longer is not something any reasonable nation would do, due to the sheer difficulties it would cause with... virtually everything else.

OOC: Indeed. The easier work around would be to maintain a constant declaration of war against someone (say Bigtopia). It is also a ridiculous thing to do, but would be a hell of a lot less disruptive.

Having read the military freedom act: any of the lines about conscientious objectors is preempted or at least satisfactorily covered. Otherwise, I think it is a good starting point.

IC: "We like the idea in general. When the good ambassador is ready, we have some substantive comments to make."

IC: “We are, as we plan to make a new draft soon. No pun intended.”

by **Jarish Inyo** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:13 am

One year could be to short of a time, depending on what an individual is training to do while in the military. In some fields, one would not have completed all the training within a year. After all, you wouldn’t want to have the person maintaining a mobile nuclear reactor to have less training then is required for it.

by **Fauxia** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:36 am

Jarish Inyo wrote:One year could be to short of a time, depending on what an individual is training to do while in the military. In some fields, one would not have completed all the training within a year. After all, you wouldn’t want to have the person maintaining a mobile nuclear reactor to have less training then is required for it.

OOC: I may extend it to two, unless I can find a limitation without an exact amount of time.

by **Jarish Inyo** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:34 am

It will be hard to put limitations on it. Each job has a different amount of training. Some of the combat positions could possibly be limited to a year. The more technical positions could take longer then a year or two just in training.

by **Attempted Socialism** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:24 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:One year could be to short of a time, depending on what an individual is training to do while in the military. In some fields, one would not have completed all the training within a year. After all, you wouldn’t want to have the person maintaining a mobile nuclear reactor to have less training then is required for it.

"Ambassador, if your military is drafting people to maintain your mobile nuclear reactors, you really ought to raise the wages for nuclear physicists in your armed forces. If we were to devise such a scheme, we would make sure that they had not just the adequate education, but also were permanent staff.
In our experience, draftees are for non-specialised units first and foremost. The army, sometimes navy and airforces, and mostly in positions that are easy to learn and requires a lot of people, such as regular infantry units. Engineering, artillery and tanks are secondary recepients of drafted soldiers.
If you're drafting people for highly specialised positions, or positions requiring a lot of technical expertise, you're doing your draft wrong. A year is more than necessary for any draftee to learn how to be cannonfodder in your imperialist wars."

OOC: US Basic Training is, IIRC, 3 months, with a month of further training in the Army. That's for soldiers, not draftees. In my country, draft is 3 months, which all soldiers will also have to go through when applying for the armed forces. Unless you're using drafted soldiers actively, a short time would be enough. No reason to extend a peacetime draft beyond 6 months, a ban on more than 12 is plenty of leeway.

by **Fauxia** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:54 pm

OOC: New draft out! I hope I cleared up the illegalities!

by **Separatist Peoples** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:11 pm

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Jarish Inyo wrote:One year could be to short of a time, depending on what an individual is training to do while in the military. In some fields, one would not have completed all the training within a year. After all, you wouldn’t want to have the person maintaining a mobile nuclear reactor to have less training then is required for it.
"Ambassador, if your military is drafting people to maintain your mobile nuclear reactors, you really ought to raise the wages for nuclear physicists in your armed forces. If we were to devise such a scheme, we would make sure that they had not just the adequate education, but also were permanent staff.
In our experience, draftees are for non-specialised units first and foremost. The army, sometimes navy and airforces, and mostly in positions that are easy to learn and requires a lot of people, such as regular infantry units. Engineering, artillery and tanks are secondary recepients of drafted soldiers.
If you're drafting people for highly specialised positions, or positions requiring a lot of technical expertise, you're doing your draft wrong. A year is more than necessary for any draftee to learn how to be cannonfodder in your imperialist wars."

OOC: US Basic Training is, IIRC, 3 months, with a month of further training in the Army. That's for soldiers, not draftees. In my country, draft is 3 months, which all soldiers will also have to go through when applying for the armed forces. Unless you're using drafted soldiers actively, a short time would be enough. No reason to extend a peacetime draft beyond 6 months, a ban on more than 12 is plenty of leeway.

"Great. Don't draft your troopers for more than six months. Let the rest of us run our domestic military in a manner conducive to our strategic posture. This is not an international issue. It isn't even an issue. It's unnecessary meddling in an area of policy that member states truly know better than the WA."

by **Fauxia** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:15 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:"Ambassador, if your military is drafting people to maintain your mobile nuclear reactors, you really ought to raise the wages for nuclear physicists in your armed forces. If we were to devise such a scheme, we would make sure that they had not just the adequate education, but also were permanent staff.
In our experience, draftees are for non-specialised units first and foremost. The army, sometimes navy and airforces, and mostly in positions that are easy to learn and requires a lot of people, such as regular infantry units. Engineering, artillery and tanks are secondary recepients of drafted soldiers.
If you're drafting people for highly specialised positions, or positions requiring a lot of technical expertise, you're doing your draft wrong. A year is more than necessary for any draftee to learn how to be cannonfodder in your imperialist wars."

OOC: US Basic Training is, IIRC, 3 months, with a month of further training in the Army. That's for soldiers, not draftees. In my country, draft is 3 months, which all soldiers will also have to go through when applying for the armed forces. Unless you're using drafted soldiers actively, a short time would be enough. No reason to extend a peacetime draft beyond 6 months, a ban on more than 12 is plenty of leeway.

"Great. Don't draft your troopers for more than six months. Let the rest of us run our domestic military in a manner conducive to our strategic posture. This is not an international issue. It isn't even an issue. It's unnecessary meddling in an area of policy that member states truly know better than the WA."

"It deals with the military, it is inherently international. Furthermore, it is a matter of civil rights. If you think abortion is international enough to be legislated on by the World Assembly, in the manner GA #286 does, then this certainly is."

by **Separatist Peoples** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:07 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Great. Don't draft your troopers for more than six months. Let the rest of us run our domestic military in a manner conducive to our strategic posture. This is not an international issue. It isn't even an issue. It's unnecessary meddling in an area of policy that member states truly know better than the WA."
"It deals with the military, it is inherently international. Furthermore, it is a matter of civil rights. If you think abortion is international enough to be legislated on by the World Assembly, in the manner GA #286 does, then this certainly is."

"The military is not inherently international. Many military forces engage in purely national defense. It is not a matter of civil rights, either. Conscription is a question of national service, and has never once been recognized as a gross infringement of civil rights by any organization of note. Bodily sovereignty has.

"We intend to use our considerable influence to scuttle any effort to regulate domestic military recruiting policy."

by **Desmosthenes and Burke** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:45 pm

"My dear Ambassador Corwin, we would like to propose you add something akin to the following to the preamble to address arguments about whether this is or is not an international concern:"

Recalling that involuntary servitude is a practice inconsistent with the ideals of ordered liberty and the rights of sapient beings;

Concerned that conscription, especially for long terms, is logically and functionally equivalent to involuntary servitude despite its legality;

Understanding that many nations view mandatory national service, such as conscription, as a fundamental part of their national civic cultures;

Recognizing that conscription may also sometimes be necessary;

And seeking to balance the virtues of conscription against the harm it does;

"We would also suggest that in terms of the time period, perhaps the language could be loosened without substantially changing the intent of the proposal or allowing too much creative compliance. Perhaps something like the following where we have bolded our change"

Mandates that no nation, during times of peace, may conscript any person for periods that longer than [insert number here] year(s) beyond the completion of their positions initial training requirement,

"We believe something along these lines would allay the most serious concerns without allowing too much latitude, although reasonable minds might differ."

Attempted Socialism wrote:"Ambassador, if your military is drafting people to maintain your mobile nuclear reactors, you really ought to raise the wages for nuclear physicists in your armed forces. If we were to devise such a scheme, we would make sure that they had not just the adequate education, but also were permanent staff.
In our experience, draftees are for non-specialised units first and foremost. The army, sometimes navy and airforces, and mostly in positions that are easy to learn and requires a lot of people, such as regular infantry units. Engineering, artillery and tanks are secondary recepients of drafted soldiers.
If you're drafting people for highly specialised positions, or positions requiring a lot of technical expertise, you're doing your draft wrong. A year is more than necessary for any draftee to learn how to be cannonfodder in your imperialist wars."

"While not the person you were addressing, we will respond. We conscript every person into our armed forces upon the completion of high-school. To that end, we usually allow them the right to choose, within the confines of a competitive selection if necessary and their ability level, what position they would like to fill. Perhaps a socialist is incapable of understanding the concept of personal advancement, but a good portion of our youth choose to fill technical or specialized roles, effectively using their national service requirement as a way to also receive post-secondary education. We see no reason this should be unavailable to them. While we can come up with several legal loopholes to continue the practice, even with the resolution as written, we felt compelled to address your short-sightedness."

by **Attempted Socialism** » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:19 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:"Ambassador, if your military is drafting people to maintain your mobile nuclear reactors, you really ought to raise the wages for nuclear physicists in your armed forces. If we were to devise such a scheme, we would make sure that they had not just the adequate education, but also were permanent staff.
In our experience, draftees are for non-specialised units first and foremost. The army, sometimes navy and airforces, and mostly in positions that are easy to learn and requires a lot of people, such as regular infantry units. Engineering, artillery and tanks are secondary recepients of drafted soldiers.
If you're drafting people for highly specialised positions, or positions requiring a lot of technical expertise, you're doing your draft wrong. A year is more than necessary for any draftee to learn how to be cannonfodder in your imperialist wars."

OOC: US Basic Training is, IIRC, 3 months, with a month of further training in the Army. That's for soldiers, not draftees. In my country, draft is 3 months, which all soldiers will also have to go through when applying for the armed forces. Unless you're using drafted soldiers actively, a short time would be enough. No reason to extend a peacetime draft beyond 6 months, a ban on more than 12 is plenty of leeway.

"Great. Don't draft your troopers for more than six months. Let the rest of us run our domestic military in a manner conducive to our strategic posture. This is not an international issue. It isn't even an issue. It's unnecessary meddling in an area of policy that member states truly know better than the WA."

"Ambassador Bell, we do not even have a peacetime draft. In our view, it's a senseless thing to have at all. Our ideal limit of draft-time would be zero seconds, but we recognise that some states may not be as enlightened as us, so a limit to the time you can incarcerate people and force them to learn how to murder their fellow beings and how much you must pay them while so incarcerated is probably the best way to increase civil rights and limit rampant militarism."

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:"While not the person you were addressing, we will respond. We conscript every person into our armed forces upon the completion of high-school. To that end, we usually allow them the right to choose, within the confines of a competitive selection if necessary and their ability level, what position they would like to fill. Perhaps a socialist is incapable of understanding the concept of personal advancement, but a good portion of our youth choose to fill technical or specialized roles, effectively using their national service requirement as a way to also receive post-secondary education. We see no reason this should be unavailable to them. While we can come up with several legal loopholes to continue the practice, even with the resolution as written, we felt compelled to address your short-sightedness."

"It would be easier, I think, to just offer them their post-secondary education in whatever field they desire, rather than having the youth of your nation forced to learn periphery skills in the military. Personal advancement in the Solidarity Movement is mostly achieved through education and labour, not by measuring how much you can destroy or kill while bereft of your freedom."

by **Separatist Peoples** » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:20 am

"Funny, the C.D.S.P. feels the value of destroying and killing as a skill set to be extremely high."

by **Christian Democrats** » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:15 pm

I don't see how this proposal could be reconciled with Resolutions 35 and 132.

The Charter Of Civil Rights (#35), Article 1, Section C
"All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be . . . discriminated against on grounds including . . . religion or belief system."

Military Freedom Act (#132), Article III, Section 2(a)
"Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military . . . duties."

by **Desmosthenes and Burke** » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:07 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I don't see how this proposal could be reconciled with Resolutions 35 and 132.

The Charter Of Civil Rights (#35), Article 1, Section C
"All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be . . . discriminated against on grounds including . . . religion or belief system."

Military Freedom Act (#132), Article III, Section 2(a)
"Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military . . . duties."

I am not Fauxia, but could you kindly explain your reasoning? Based on the current draft, I cannot see any language that implicates either of those two sections.

by **Christian Democrats** » Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:34 am

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I don't see how this proposal could be reconciled with Resolutions 35 and 132.

The Charter Of Civil Rights (#35), Article 1, Section C
"All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be . . . discriminated against on grounds including . . . religion or belief system."

Military Freedom Act (#132), Article III, Section 2(a)
"Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military . . . duties."

I am not Fauxia, but could you kindly explain your reasoning? Based on the current draft, I cannot see any language that implicates either of those two sections.

Under Resolution 132, the power to draft conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties is reserved exclusively to member states (i.e., the GA cannot limit this power). If the GA sought to limit conscription for non-combative military duties, that would contradict Resolution 132. If the GA sought to limit conscription for non-combative military duties, except as provided in previous legislation, that would contradict Resolution 35 because it would impose a discriminatory burden on conscientious objectors.

Given that approximately four-fifths of soldiers serve in non-combat roles, I don't see how the GA can impose any serious limitations on military conscription.

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:55 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:If the GA sought to limit conscription for non-combative military duties, except as provided in previous legislation, that would contradict Resolution 35 because it would impose a discriminatory burden on conscientious objectors.

I...really don't get this argument. Please could you elaborate?

by **Christian Democrats** » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:48 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:If the GA sought to limit conscription for non-combative military duties, except as provided in previous legislation, that would contradict Resolution 35 because it would impose a discriminatory burden on conscientious objectors.

I...really don't get this argument. Please could you elaborate?

Resolution 132 protects the practice of conscripting conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties (about 80% of military roles). Together with Resolution 35, this exact same practice must be protected with regard to other individuals. Otherwise, there would be unlawful discrimination against conscientious objectors.

by **Fauxia** » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:53 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:I...really don't get this argument. Please could you elaborate?

Resolution 132 protects the practice of conscripting conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties (about 80% of military roles). Together with Resolution 35, this exact same practice must be protected with regard to other individuals. Otherwise, there would be unlawful discrimination against conscientious objectors.

OOC: Is it possible I should open a challenge to see what the rest of GenSec says?

[DRAFT]Limitiations On Conscription

[DRAFT]Limitiations On Conscription

Who is online