[PASSED] Provisional Rule in Wartime

[Sierra Lyricalia]

'Nation A, partly using equipment produced in factory X, attacks nation B => Nation B fights back successfully, and actually manages to occupy the area [formerly held by Nation A] including factory X => Nation B has to pay the government of Nation A if it wants to use equipment from factory X in the completion of its fight against that aggressor' ?!?

Yep. Because Factory X was never owned by Nation B. You're justifying theft with emotional pleas.

OOC: This example (or rather your response to it) still seems a bit beyond the scope of what's reasonable during wartime. If the factory is government-owned in its initial state, then that counts as seizure of military assets for all intents and purposes. If it was privately owned, then I can see an argument for negotiating with the owner (or better, the workers who run it ) to either buy them out or buy their product. And if the occupying power is going to keep the factory running for its own efforts, those workers ought to be paid commensurately with the economics of the occupied territory. But requiring compensation between belligerents for the seizure of militarily relevant property or materiel during wartime is absurd.

[Separatist Peoples]

Yep. Because Factory X was never owned by Nation B. You're justifying theft with emotional pleas.

OOC: This example (or rather your response to it) still seems a bit beyond the scope of what's reasonable during wartime. If the factory is government-owned in its initial state, then that counts as seizure of military assets for all intents and purposes. If it was privately owned, then I can see an argument for negotiating with the owner (or better, the workers who run it ) to either buy them out or buy their product. And if the occupying power is going to keep the factory running for its own efforts, those workers ought to be paid commensurately with the economics of the occupied territory. But requiring compensation between belligerents for the seizure of militarily relevant property or materiel during wartime is absurd.

Ooc: I addressed this earlier in the comment you quoted, actually.

[Separatist Peoples]

Quu'bump. That's Bigtopian for Bump.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Quu'bump. That's Bigtopian for Bump.

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: Funny that, today is the same day that came up on my Bigtopian Word-a-day calendar.

[Wallenburg]

"Might the authoring delegation clarify whether this proposal would respect battlefields and the contested territory they reside in as separate from occupied territory, and thereby respect member states' rights to seize material essential for immediate military operations, per the allowances provided in 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Might the authoring delegation clarify whether this proposal would respect battlefields and the contested territory they reside in as separate from occupied territory, and thereby respect member states' rights to seize material essential for immediate military operations, per the allowances provided in 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'?"

Do you mean abridge member states' rights to seize material... ?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Might the authoring delegation clarify whether this proposal would respect battlefields and the contested territory they reside in as separate from occupied territory, and thereby respect member states' rights to seize material essential for immediate military operations, per the allowances provided in 'Wartime Looting and Pillage'?"

"I have considered the battlefield and occupied territory to be separate jurisdictions. A battlefield is, by its nature, a contested territory. While military superiority may not be questionable, that there is combat itself suggests the land is not uncontested. This should not interfere with battlefield seizures."

[Liberimery]

Was there ever any clarification as to what clause 8 intends to accomplish?

[Separatist Peoples]

Was there ever any clarification as to what clause 8 intends to accomplish?

"Catastrophe."

[Liberimery]

Was there ever any clarification as to what clause 8 intends to accomplish?

"Catastrophe."

Is it about captured arsenals? My own?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Catastrophe."

Is it about captured arsenals? My own?

"All of them."

[Liberimery]

Is it about captured arsenals? My own?

"All of them."

The vague wording of clause 8 would seem to violate conventions on the proper use of the English Language. I do not mean to imply that a member of the General Secretariat would not know the rules nor that they would intentionally put in a vaguely worded clause into a resolution to force a policy that may otherwise lose votes if fully explained, but I would like this matter clarified and would ask that the proposal better explain the intent. Who does clause 8 apply to? When does it apply? What is the intended goal of the clause and what current problem does it solve? Why is included in a resolution about occupied territories?

I am very concerned about your lack of clarification on an issue of Nuclear Arms. The ramifications of such a clause are too great for my nation to not demand a more verbose answer.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Language rules aren't an IC matter, because in the WA universe, one would expect that everything is translated. Moreover, the rule has nothing to do with vagueness, it has to do with understandability and in fact being English. But that aside, it's very clear. There are no exceptions, and it says 'all'.

Let's pretend that the clause is submitted with the rest of the resolution, which is something I sincerely doubt. Considering that nations will not want their arsenals to be destroyed by nuclear fire, it would be more than feasible to simply take all their weapons and drop them into the nearest ocean. Otherwise, just dispose of them by exploding them with conventional explosives in a pit. Nuclear weapons require very specific compression waves, otherwise, they don't work. Then bury the nuclear waste. Nothing all that bad would happen.

These are all disposal methods that would probably take less than five days for a moderately sized arsenal. Even if you have huge arsenals like the United States, this still isn't that huge of a problem because of the speed by which you can just dump them into the ocean. Why? Mostly because the credibility of a nuclear strike capability that cannot actually be used within five days... is marginal to non-existent, defeating the purpose of having the weapons in the first place.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

I don't think colonial or winners in war want this. Devastate the enemy as possible and leave no prisoner

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think colonial or winners in war want this. Devastate the enemy as possible and leave no prisoner

"That is already illegal, ambassador."

[Bears Armed]

it would be more than feasible to simply take all their weapons and drop them into the nearest ocean.

Governments within the ocean might object...

^_^

[Separatist Peoples]

"I don't see the need to continue discussing the TOTALLY SERIOUS AND NOT AT ALL A JOKE that is Clause 8. Its clearly settled law."

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 4dii seems overly restrictive, since there is no restriction on what constitutes natural resources. This could, depending on the defintion used, stop military forces from using natural water in order to keep their soldiers alive and healthy. Furthermore, utilization is a very broad term and could include simply using natural rocks, which are resources, defensively. There needs to be some qualifications on what sort of natural resources need apply.

Also, remove clause 8.”

[Separatist Peoples]

“Clause 4dii seems overly restrictive, since there is no restriction on what constitutes natural resources. This could, depending on the defintion used, stop military forces from using natural water in order to keep their soldiers alive and healthy. Furthermore, utilization is a very broad term and could include simply using natural rocks, which are resources, defensively. There needs to be some qualifications on what sort of natural resources need apply.

Also, remove clause 8.”

"I don't believe either water nor natural topographic features can be reasonably said to fuel a war effort. Unless, I suppose, your soldiers are armed with squirtguns?

"I'm willing to die on the hill of Clause 8."

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 4dii seems overly restrictive, since there is no restriction on what constitutes natural resources. This could, depending on the defintion used, stop military forces from using natural water in order to keep their soldiers alive and healthy. Furthermore, utilization is a very broad term and could include simply using natural rocks, which are resources, defensively. There needs to be some qualifications on what sort of natural resources need apply.

Also, remove clause 8.”

"I don't believe either water nor natural topographic features can be reasonably said to fuel a war effort. Unless, I suppose, your soldiers are armed with squirtguns?

"I'm willing to die on the hill of Clause 8."

“Some military equipment requires a water component in order to prevent overheating, and simply using the water to keep the soldiers hydrated could count as part of a war effort. Many military vehicles also need water to allow them to run smoothly. On the topographical features, there’s are numerous strategic advantages that can be gained from terrain, which have been decisively in winning many battles.

I think we will all be dying, on or off hills, in the event of clause 8.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"I don't believe either water nor natural topographic features can be reasonably said to fuel a war effort. Unless, I suppose, your soldiers are armed with squirtguns?

"I'm willing to die on the hill of Clause 8."

“Some military equipment requires a water component in order to prevent overheating, and simply using the water to keep the soldiers hydrated could count as part of a war effort. Many military vehicles also need water to allow them to run smoothly. On the topographical features, there’s are numerous strategic advantages that can be gained from terrain, which have been decisively in winning many battles.

I think we will all be dying, on or off hills, in the event of clause 8.”

"I strongly suspect that those uses are too de minimis to function as a violation. Otherwise, aspirating soldiers could be found to have coopted an occupied territory's air. However, I suppose I could change the wording from fueling the war effort to creating war materiel.

"Perhaps. Unless you happen to own stock in ValutTec..."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Bump

[Xanthal]

Is there any reasonable way to decouple the expectations for proper conduct of an occupying entity from the military context used here? Before getting too deep into the text I'd first like to address the possibility of broadening the definition of what constitutes an occupation and therefore falls under the protections of the proposed resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Otherwise, aspirating soldiers could be found to have coopted an occupied territory's air.

Praussian troops cross the Denish border into Sellsig. Arrested by a WA gnome: « You are under arrest for stealing Denish air! You go to jail! »

[Separatist Peoples]

Otherwise, aspirating soldiers could be found to have coopted an occupied territory's air.

Praussian troops cross the Denish border into Sellsig. Arrested by a WA gnome: « You are under arrest for stealing Denish air! You go to jail! »

"Thank you for the reminder! Adjustment made."