[DEFEATED] Preventing Unjust Warfare

[United Massachusetts]

---

Preventing Unjust Warfare
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Affirming the fundamental truth that not all armed conflict is just and that nations hold a fundamental responsibility to discern between just and unjust warfare,

Noting that while these decisions may certainly present difficult challenges, a series of procedures ought to be established on the international level to prevent such unjust conflict,

Believing such an aim to be fitting with the stated goals of this Assembly -- namely, to spread peace and goodwill worldwide,

The General Assembly, with the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the "initiation of transnational military action" as the act of disturbing a transnational peace, either through a declaration of war, invasion, or another hostile and violent measure across international borders,
   
   
2. Prohibits member-states from initiating transnational military action:
   
   1. except for the purposes of:
      
      1. self-defense against a hostile actor, or the defense of another nation, where undeniable and concrete evidence establishes that said hostile actor is invading, or will imminently do so,
      2. preventing the well-documented, widespread, and systematic abuse of human rights, as established under international law, or where there is well-documented evidence that such an abuse will likely occur,
      3. assisting a competent national authority in combating a violent non-state actor within their territory, with the permission of said competent authority,
      4. the fulfillment of binding and pre-existing national obligations under treaty or international law, or the exercise of rights specifically afforded to nations under extant international law,
   2. in violation of their legal obligations and agreements, both internally and internationally,
   3. where its costs, in human life, economic output, and political turmoil, far outweigh its expected returns
   4. or before all feasible diplomatic and/or non-violent efforts to end hostilities have failed, excepting those situations where an immediate response is needed to neutralize a proven direct and imminent threat, and,
3. Further prohibits non-state actors, excluding those salaried by a state and acting formally on its behalf, from initiating transnational military action within a World Assembly member-state.

OOC: For full disclosure, many parts of this resolution are substantially similar to a draft Auralia presented in 2017. This is in part due to the fact that our criterion are taken from more or less the same source, traditional just war theory. There remain substantial differences, however, and I've more or less chosen to take up the similar concept now that Auralia has left NationStates (permanently, he tells me), basing it on how I would write a just war resolution. If Auralia deserves credit at the end of this resolution, I'd be happy to provide it.

[Kenmoria]

“2d isn’t really applicable in cases of self-defence from an immediate threat. If South Kenmoria were to be suddenly invaded by a previously-unknown actor, I don’t think that all possible diplomatic solutions should be tried before the Parliament decides to fight back. That would simply lead to a greater delay and therefore more civilian casualties.”

[United Massachusetts]

“2d isn’t really applicable in cases of self-defence from an immediate threat. If South Kenmoria were to be suddenly invaded by a previously-unknown actor, I don’t think that all possible diplomatic solutions should be tried before the Parliament decides to fight back. That would simply lead to a greater delay and therefore more civilian casualties.”

"Amended."

[East Meranopirus]

"In clause 2c, how can a government be expected to weigh up these costs and returns if the concept of "expected returns" from a war is so abstract and unmeasureable?How can, for example, curbing the spread of a hostile ideology be weighed up? Furthermore, are these expected returns for the nation engaging in war or for the world as a whole? That is not clear to me."

[Voltrovia]

"On what legal basis will these claims, to self-defense, etcetera, be adjudicated? By treaty court or special session of the World Assembly? One can hardly have an injunction against war in the meantime.

In some ways, then, this is a charter for the - well, subsequent - prosecution of war criminals.

One does hope this resolution would not interfere with an independent state's sovereign power to withdraw from at least some multilateral obligations.

Unilaterally. Where needs must!

Oh, and this delegation must echo concern over 'expected returns'. This humble delegate does fear my government might take sadness at a suggestion we have waged war in expectation of mere benefit. Say nothing of His Imperial Majesty. This concept could attract unhelpful hostility - from many reluctant opponents too; it needs to evolve just a little.

The motion founded on excellent principles, a striking number of which might survive a World Assembly vote. One feels bound to express personal admiration for the impeccable style in a great part of the text.

Auralia will always be a great nation in our eyes. This diplomat wonders: perhaps best to devise a formula accounting for Auralia's past efforts while not apologising for nor diminishing the personal, national character of your work. And in keeping with the stricter of this Assembly's rules on textual mentions of member-states!"

[Aclion]

All possible diplomatic solutions is way too broad. Surrender is a diplomatic solution.

[United Massachusetts]

All possible diplomatic solutions is way too broad. Surrender is a diplomatic solution.

It said all feasible diplomatic options.

"On what legal basis will these claims, to self-defense, etcetera, be adjudicated? By treaty court or special session of the World Assembly? One can hardly have an injunction against war in the meantime.

"A system of adjudication has been added, with the assistance of a far more skilled ambassador than myself."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: this draft somewhat misstates the approval and enforcement mechanism I have UM permission to use, but I cannot discuss it in depth until tonight at the soonest, publicly or privately. I suspect some clarity regarding the role of the tribunal and its powers will come relatively soon. So, masses of the GA, stay your thirsty blades!

[Wallenburg]

The General Assembly, with the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same:

OOC: Please, not you too...

[*]assisting a competent national authority in combating a violent non-state actor, with the permission of said competent authority,

IC: "Why is this exception limited to conflicts with non-state actors?"

[Tupolite]

"Tupolite objects. Without waging war against her neighbors for their resources, the high levels of public spending necessary to secure the welfare of her people would be unsustainable in the long-term, making the economy chiefly reliant upon higher taxation of her citizenry, exports, and loans from foreign and international organizations. This is unacceptable. Tupolite must not become beholden to internatonal finance, and her people must endure with their current or superior standard of living."

[Tinfect]

Affirming the fundamental truth that not all armed conflict is just and that nations hold a fundamental responsibility to discern between just and unjust warfare,
Noting that while these decisions may certainly present difficult challenges, a series of procedures ought to be established on the international level to prevent such unjust conflict,
Believing such an aim to be fitting with the stated goals of this Assembly -- namely, to spread peace and goodwill worldwide,

"The Imperium must note that it is not the place of the World Assembly to define what wars are acceptable for a Member-State."

The General Assembly, with the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same:[list=1]

"This clause is in flagrant violation of Resolution Nine, Ambassador."

Prohibits member-states from initiating transnational military action:
or before all feasible diplomatic and/or non-violent efforts to end hostilities have failed, excepting those situations where an immediate response is needed to neutralize a direct and imminent threat,

"This is the sole concern of the Imperium regarding the specific definitions of a 'just' war, Ambassador; The Imperium makes our positions clear, we see little reason to engage in diplomatic efforts with foreign states that have little interest in legitimate diplomacy in favor of continuing their illegal and hostile acts against the Imperium, regardless of whether the Imperium considers the matter 'immediate'.

Tasks the World Assembly Just War Tribunal with analyzing potential initiations of transnational military action, where submitted for consideration, in order to determine where action would violate the mandates of clause two if undertaken and issuing injunctions against such actions,
Requires nations to submit potential initiations of transnational military action to the World Assembly Just War Tribunal for approval prior to commencing hostilities, excepting those situations where an immediate response to an imminent threat is necessary,
Orders nations to obey any injunctions issued by the World Assembly Just War Tribunal.

"These demands are foundationally unacceptable to any reasonable Member-State. The only entity qualified or appropriate to determine whether it is acceptable for the Imperium to go to war is the Imperium. We will not have the safety of our citizenry subject to the whims of a foreign body, nor will we effectively hand our enemies, or any foreign entity not intending to enter the war as an ally of the Imperium, the full, or even partial details, of our engagement strategy. This mandate is little more than mandated military suicide, and we will tolerate none of it."

[Kardashev III Civilization]

The obelisk smashes in a wall, such that it can hover inside both debate halls hosted by the delegation from United Massachusetts. "Ambassador, there is no unjust warfare. All conflict known to my people is carried out in self-defense, and must be preemptive by the nature of self defense. Why else would we strip a planet of its biosphere? The process is very expensive."

[Marxist Germany]

"Germany declares its support for this proposal."

[Kowani]

What you have done here, ambassador, is set a unique criteria as just, without explaining why. Unless that is done, the Kowani delegation cannot abide by this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Any war-regulating proposal that would still make it ok for USA invading Iraq with the excuses they used in the latest/current war, is not actually regulating anything. Or, if you want a darker example, because this fits that too, anything justifying Nazi Germany's acts of war in WW2.

[Kenmoria]

“Why do you enact a blanket ban on non-state actors imitating military conflict, in clause 3, even when this conflict will not contradict any of the criteria you establish to prohibit a war by member states? This seems unnecessarily harsh, given that non-state actors aren’t normally as strong as governments.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Any war-regulating proposal that would still make it ok for USA invading Iraq with the excuses they used in the latest/current war, is not actually regulating anything. Or, if you want a darker example, because this fits that too, anything justifying Nazi Germany's acts of war in WW2.

OOC: ^This^

IC: "Ambassador Pierce, I don't see how any nation that values its security can reasonably decide to comply with Clause 5. Basic strategy in all facets of existence, but especially in military matters, requires that you don't advertise to your opponent what your next move is, or even that you're considering any particular move. Presuming that a war may be just, prosecuting it is much harder when the enemy has foreknowledge of your aims and the means and timing by which you intend to achieve them. This requirement makes no sense in the context of actual global affairs."

"Then, we consider that permitting a doctrine of so-called 'pre-emptive self defense,' as in Clause 2(a)(i), removes any reason for this resolution to exist, full stop. Consider the so-called 'Pearl Harbor' scenario in the extremely popular MMRPG Real Life - where a nation reasonably believes that a war is inevitable given two nations' entirely irreconcilable international policy platforms, it very probably considers a first strike of that type to be 'pre-emptive self-defense.' But that don't make it so."

"And it's a hell of a lot harder to prosecute a leader or military unit for crimes against peace if you give them the defense that 'Aw, gee willikers, mein herr, we had intelligence that the Scumbagtopian Fourth Order was gearing up to invade Milkandhoneyburg, we had to act! It's not our fault the source was bunk!' This entire notion is nonsensical."

[Aclion]

OOC: Any war-regulating proposal that would still make it ok for USA invading Iraq with the excuses they used in the latest/current war, is not actually regulating anything. Or, if you want a darker example, because this fits that too, anything justifying Nazi Germany's acts of war in WW2.

OOC: ^This^

IC: "Ambassador Pierce, I don't see how any nation that values its security can reasonably decide to comply with Clause 5. Basic strategy in all facets of existence, but especially in military matters, requires that you don't advertise to your opponent what your next move is, or even that you're considering any particular move. Presuming that a war may be just, prosecuting it is much harder when the enemy has foreknowledge of your aims and the means and timing by which you intend to achieve them. This requirement makes no sense in the context of actual global affairs."

"Then, we consider that permitting a doctrine of so-called 'pre-emptive self defense,' as in Clause 2(a)(i), removes any reason for this resolution to exist, full stop. Consider the so-called 'Pearl Harbor' scenario in the extremely popular MMRPG Real Life - where a nation reasonably believes that a war is inevitable given two nations' entirely irreconcilable international policy platforms, it very probably considers a first strike of that type to be 'pre-emptive self-defense.' But that don't make it so."

"And it's a hell of a lot harder to prosecute a leader or military unit for crimes against peace if you give them the defense that 'Aw, gee willikers, mein herr, we had intelligence that the Scumbagtopian Fourth Order was gearing up to invade Milkandhoneyburg, we had to act! It's not our fault the source was bunk!' This entire notion is nonsensical."

If the crime against peace is that the war was started on false intelligence wouldn't you prosecute the people responsible, not the leaders or military units conducting the war in good faith?

Also your Pearl Harbor scenario is predicated on a situation where said nation has already violated WA laws in pursuit of that same international policy platform, so I don't see how it it relevant.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If the crime against peace is the war was started on false intelligence wouldn't you prosecute the people responsible for that, not the military units conducting the war?

"Why would you prosecute intelligence gatherers or cranks with bad information for the actions of military units? Unless you mean the national leadership. But why create the ambiguity in the first place?"

Also your Pearl Harbor scenario is predicated on a situation where said nation has already violated WA laws in pursuit of that same international policy platform, so I don't see how it it relevant.

"The in-game plot happens to have been written that way, yes. But you can surely imagine a similar scenario where both nations are otherwise in compliance with international law, yes? The point stands."

[Aclion]

If the crime against peace is the war was started on false intelligence wouldn't you prosecute the people responsible for that, not the military units conducting the war?

"Why would you prosecute intelligence gatherers or cranks with bad information for the actions of military units? Unless you mean the national leadership. But why create the ambiguity in the first place?"

Also your Pearl Harbor scenario is predicated on a situation where said nation has already violated WA laws in pursuit of that same international policy platform, so I don't see how it it relevant.

"The in-game plot happens to have been written that way, yes. But you can surely imagine a similar scenario where both nations are otherwise in compliance with international law, yes? The point stands."

take another example from "Real Life", The Niger uranium forgeries. Intelligence officers from Italy and the US maliciously deceived the Bush administration in order to trigger a war between the US and Iraq. It seems patently unfair to punish leaders or soldiers carrying out their duties in good faith for the acts of third parties which were acting with malice toward those same leaders.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why would you prosecute intelligence gatherers or cranks with bad information for the actions of military units? Unless you mean the national leadership. But why create the ambiguity in the first place?"


"The in-game plot happens to have been written that way, yes. But you can surely imagine a similar scenario where both nations are otherwise in compliance with international law, yes? The point stands."

take another example from "Real Life", The Niger uranium forgeries. Intelligence officers from Italy and the US maliciously deceived the Bush administration in order to trigger a war between the US and Iraq. It seems patently unfair to punish leaders or soldiers carrying out their duties in good faith for the acts of third parties which were acting with malice toward those same leaders.

"These are all factors any court would consider as a matter of justice."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

take another example from "Real Life", The Niger uranium forgeries. Intelligence officers from Italy and the US maliciously deceived the Bush administration in order to trigger a war between the US and Iraq. It seems patently unfair to punish leaders or soldiers carrying out their duties in good faith for the acts of third parties which were acting with malice toward those same leaders.

"I remain unclear how any of this justifies a war conducted on the alleged grounds of 'pre-emptive self-defense.' However the culpability falls on individuals, the excuse fails to be a legitimate casus belli."

[United Massachusetts]

Ooc: this draft somewhat misstates the approval and enforcement mechanism I have UM permission to use, but I cannot discuss it in depth until tonight at the soonest, publicly or privately. I suspect some clarity regarding the role of the tribunal and its powers will come relatively soon. So, masses of the GA, stay your thirsty blades!

Any chance you'd be willing to clarify?

OOC: Any war-regulating proposal that would still make it ok for USA invading Iraq with the excuses they used in the latest/current war, is not actually regulating anything. Or, if you want a darker example, because this fits that too, anything justifying Nazi Germany's acts of war in WW2.

OOC: It really doesn't at all justify either of those cases, especially not the latter. I'm willing to consider adding a clause requiring member nations to have intelligence backing their claims, as I could see how the US could get away with Iraq by yelling about WMDs. But let's be honest, any review panel established would have to consider false intelligence.


I'm working on a significant rewrite of this that should deal with most of the issues presented and significantly narrow any sort of preemptive self-defense protections. Now, unfortunately, I'm still travelling (and still don't have Discord access), so it will take me a bit of time to get this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Any war-regulating proposal that would still make it ok for USA invading Iraq with the excuses they used in the latest/current war, is not actually regulating anything. Or, if you want a darker example, because this fits that too, anything justifying Nazi Germany's acts of war in WW2.

OOC: It really doesn't at all justify either of those cases, especially not the latter. I'm willing to consider adding a clause requiring member nations to have intelligence backing their claims, as I could see how the US could get away with Iraq by yelling about WMDs. But let's be honest, any review panel established would have to consider false intelligence.

OOC: 2.a.iv. is part of the problem. Just make a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with another nation about taking down and dividing a third nation or something similar, and you can do whatever you want.

Also, exactly what good is any review panel going to be, except afterwards? Because once you have an active war going on, if one side doesn't want peace (especially if the war is going their way), it's not like the WA going "Bad war! Stop!" is actually going to stop the other side from defending itself.

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal. We echo the sentiment of the ambassador from Araraukar that certain clauses in this proposal could be ignored at best and abused at worst. In addition, our nation is often threatened by space pirates from the asteroids surrounding our planets. If the WA unilaterally rules our cause unjust, why must we stop defending ourselves?"