[PASSED] Wartime Healthcare Protections

[Maowi]

'A new draft has been put up for your inspection. I have made changes to clauses 3c (where I added 'inside member nations' so that the IHACC is not forced to notify medical facilities withiout knowing whether they are in danger or not), 4a and b and 6.'

[Marxist Germany]

"I strongly support this proposal and will be looking forward to working with the ambassador of Maowi to make improvements."

[Kenmoria]

“Could you give examples of what it is for which 5b could be used? With examples, the clause should hopefully be able to be narrowed, as it is currently very broad.”

[Maowi]

"I strongly support this proposal and will be looking forward to working with the ambassador of Maowi to make improvements."

'Thank you for your support, ambassador.'

“Could you give examples of what it is for which 5b could be used? With examples, the clause should hopefully be able to be narrowed, as it is currently very broad.”

'I had been hoping that good faith compliance would be enough to ensure lack of abuse of this clause, but perhaps a committee could come in useful here?'

OOC: To give you an example, I think the situation UM hypothesised is a situation in which the use of violence would be necessary (to quote: 'If patients in a hospital are blocking access to a nuclear bomb hidden in a hospital, shouldn't an army be able to coerce them into showing where the bomb is?'). Or, for example, patients travelling from a hospital being used to shield poison gas cylinders. I think I could edit it to read

is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to achieve the strategical necessity. The use of violence against non-civilian medical patients or staff for the purposes of reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;

or even

is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity for the prevention of war crimes, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to prevent the war crime(s);

Alternatively, I was considering entrusting such judgement to the IHACC, similarly to my clauses on area bombardment, but I am worried that in cases where there is a military necessity time would be of the essence and this would not be useful. So I'm not really sure what to do here, would anyone be able to give feedback on either of these options?

[Kenmoria]

"I strongly support this proposal and will be looking forward to working with the ambassador of Maowi to make improvements."

'Thank you for your support, ambassador.'

“Could you give examples of what it is for which 5b could be used? With examples, the clause should hopefully be able to be narrowed, as it is currently very broad.”

'I had been hoping that good faith compliance would be enough to ensure lack of abuse of this clause, but perhaps a committee could come in useful here?'

OOC: To give you an example, I think the situation UM hypothesised is a situation in which the use of violence would be necessary (to quote: 'If patients in a hospital are blocking access to a nuclear bomb hidden in a hospital, shouldn't an army be able to coerce them into showing where the bomb is?'). Or, for example, patients travelling from a hospital being used to shield poison gas cylinders. I think I could edit it to read

is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to achieve the strategical necessity. The use of violence against non-civilian medical patients or staff for the purposes of reprisal shall never be considered a military necessity by member nations;

or even

is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity for the prevention of war crimes, in which case the minimum force possible must be used to prevent the war crime(s);

Alternatively, I was considering entrusting such judgement to the IHACC, similarly to my clauses on area bombardment, but I am worried that in cases where there is a military necessity time would be of the essence and this would not be useful. So I'm not really sure what to do here, would anyone be able to give feedback on either of these options?

(OOC: Both of your proposal replacements are better than what is here currently. I think don’t give too much work to the IHACC, since a member nation can do this by itself just fine.)

[Maowi]

(OOC: Both of your proposal replacements are better than what is here currently. I think don’t give too much work to the IHACC, since a member nation can do this by itself just fine.)

OOC: I have edited the draft accordingly. I went with the first option to avoid any confusion as to who or what defines war crimes (I couldn't find any definition for war crimes in unrepealed GA legislation?).

[Araraukar]

(I couldn't find any definition for war crimes in unrepealed GA legislation?).

OOC: There's no all-inclusive definition, but various resolutions declare various things as war crimes. Starting with these results might help.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Easy enough to have IHACC provide investigatory support to the Compliance Commission for war crimes specifically involving humanitarian efforts or the abuse of them."

[Maowi]

'I've produced a new draft. I added a line to the preamble clarifying the existence of protections for civilians during war, and also expanded the clause regarding the IHACC. I was still unsure about situations in which member nations have to act very quickly, so I added a sub-clause on that, which I fear is a bit convoluted and which I could probably simplify in some way or other. Ambassador Bell's suggestion has also been included - thank you for that one. I have also been having doubts as to whether the mandates of clauses 4a and b can be realistically met, as it would be difficult for member nations to identify medical patients actually travelling to a medical facility. I added the word 'directly', which should hopefully allow for a more realistic interpretation without permitting military forces to ambush patients and staff outside facilities. However, I am still dissatisfied with that and will be thinking about ways of improving it.'

OOC: Please forgive typos/general stupidity, I'm on my phone and it's not quite early...

(I couldn't find any definition for war crimes in unrepealed GA legislation?).

OOC: There's no all-inclusive definition, but various resolutions declare various things as war crimes. Starting with these results might help.

Thank you for linking the search for me directly. Given the lack of one official WA definition, though, I would feel uneasy using the term here. I don't want this to turn into a proposal about war in general and to start defining terms like 'war crime' ...

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump. I'm still looking for feedback on the new draft.

[Kenmoria]

“Could 3bi be expanded to also cover infrastructure and supplies?”

[Maowi]

“Could 3bi be expanded to also cover infrastructure and supplies?”

'Yes, I will see to that. I think that could be implemented across the whole of clause 3, except for asking the IHACC to locate and track all medical supplies; that seems a little too much to ask for. I'll also add that into clause 6.'

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

"The Soviet Union fully supports this resolution, and is looking forward to see it on the road to the WA."

[Maowi]

"The Soviet Union fully supports this resolution, and is looking forward to see it on the road to the WA."

'Thank you for the support, ambassador.

'I've added in the edit suggested by the Kenmorian delegation.'

[Maowi]

OOC: I apologise for the double post, but I want to think about getting this ready for submission hopefully before my summer holidays end

I'm still not quite satisfied with 5.b.; I don't know if it provides sufficient protection when taken in conjunction with good faith compliance. I'm not sure whether expanding upon what constitutes 'an absolute necessity by military strategy' would help? Or whether I should use the same terms for exception which I use in 3.b.i.?

Also, just to prevent this coming to haunt me once I've already submitted this and campaigned for it, I'm worried about clause 5 in relation to clause 1 of GAR #121. The trouble is that GAR #121's definition of 'medical facility' is incredibly vague - it refers to medical facilities as 'structures'. Would using the minimum force necessary against military staff or patients to achieve an absolute strategical necessity constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure? I believe not, but I am far less certain regarding whether an attempt 'to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation' would constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure...

Should this be illegal for contradiction it would obviously be frustrating but I don't see a way around it. I think I'd just have to revive my repeal draft and turn this into a repeal and replace effort...

[Araraukar]

Should this be illegal for contradiction

OOC: I don't generally speaking like people doing this, but submitting it without campaign would get it marked legal/illegal by GenSec.

[Maowi]

Should this be illegal for contradiction

OOC: I don't generally speaking like people doing this, but submitting it without campaign would get it marked legal/illegal by GenSec.

OOC: I'd rather avoid doing that but if I'm still unsure after a while I might have to

[Kenmoria]

Would using the minimum force necessary against military staff or patients to achieve an absolute strategical necessity constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure? I believe not, but I am far less certain regarding whether an attempt 'to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation' would constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure...

(OOC: I believe that using force against medical patients would count as an intentional attack, regardless of the strategic necessity. Some people are having force used against them, and that should be enough, in my opinion, for counting as an attack. Accessing data, assuming it is not changed, does not harm the medical facility nor the patients thereof, so should be fine.)

[Maowi]

Would using the minimum force necessary against military staff or patients to achieve an absolute strategical necessity constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure? I believe not, but I am far less certain regarding whether an attempt 'to access medical facilities' data on medical staff or patients without authorisation' would constitute an 'intentional attack, raid or sabotage' on a structure...

(OOC: I believe that using force against medical patients would count as an intentional attack, regardless of the strategic necessity. Some people are having force used against them, and that should be enough, in my opinion, for counting as an attack. Accessing data, assuming it is not changed, does not harm the medical facility nor the patients thereof, so should be fine.)

OOC: I was more confused regarding GAR #121's use of 'structure' in its definition of 'medical facility', which suggests to me that the physical building must be damaged in an air raid or something similar in order to be in violation of GAR #121. Which, come to think of it, makes me realise that clause 3.b. could be problematic - I need to specify in 3.b.i. that the area bombardment may not occur if the member nation itself is already aware of the presence of a medical facility in the area. That would prevent contradiction with GAR #121's definition of 'deliberate targeting' as an intentional raid, etc..
Also regarding the 'accessing data', I'll add in that under no circumstances may the data be changed and that should also avoid contradiction.
So the only thing I'm unsure of really regarding the legality is how literally the use of 'structure' in GAR #121 can be interpreted...

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I believe that using force against medical patients would count as an intentional attack, regardless of the strategic necessity. Some people are having force used against them, and that should be enough, in my opinion, for counting as an attack. Accessing data, assuming it is not changed, does not harm the medical facility nor the patients thereof, so should be fine.)

OOC: I was more confused regarding GAR #121's use of 'structure' in its definition of 'medical facility', which suggests to me that the physical building must be damaged in an air raid or something similar in order to be in violation of GAR #121. Which, come to think of it, makes me realise that clause 3.b. could be problematic - I need to specify in 3.b.i. that the area bombardment may not occur if the member nation itself is already aware of the presence of a medical facility in the area. That would prevent contradiction with GAR #121's definition of 'deliberate targeting' as an intentional raid, etc..
Also regarding the 'accessing data', I'll add in that under no circumstances may the data be changed and that should also avoid contradiction.
So the only thing I'm unsure of really regarding the legality is how literally the use of 'structure' in GAR #121 can be interpreted...

(OOC: I see — it does depend on how literally the definition is interpreted. I’m tempted to say that the current proposal, once you’ve implemented the above changes, is legal because a legalistic interpretation of ‘structure’ is colourable, but I’ve been told that there are limits to how far a reasonable interpretation goes.

This is a case where the individual interpretation styles of the Gensec members will make a difference, so I agree that a trial run of this legislation will be useful.)

[Maowi]

OOC: I was more confused regarding GAR #121's use of 'structure' in its definition of 'medical facility', which suggests to me that the physical building must be damaged in an air raid or something similar in order to be in violation of GAR #121. Which, come to think of it, makes me realise that clause 3.b. could be problematic - I need to specify in 3.b.i. that the area bombardment may not occur if the member nation itself is already aware of the presence of a medical facility in the area. That would prevent contradiction with GAR #121's definition of 'deliberate targeting' as an intentional raid, etc..
Also regarding the 'accessing data', I'll add in that under no circumstances may the data be changed and that should also avoid contradiction.
So the only thing I'm unsure of really regarding the legality is how literally the use of 'structure' in GAR #121 can be interpreted...

(OOC: I see — it does depend on how literally the definition is interpreted. I’m tempted to say that the current proposal, once you’ve implemented the above changes, is legal because a legalistic interpretation of ‘structure’ is colourable, but I’ve been told that there are limits to how far a reasonable interpretation goes.

This is a case where the individual interpretation styles of the Gensec members will make a difference, so I agree that a trial run of this legislation will be useful.)

OOC: I've put in the necessary changes. 3.b.i. has now grown extremely long but I think it's still legible?
Also, in case anybody asks, I put the data thing in a separate clause so as to avoid it being included in the exceptions of clause 5...

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I see — it does depend on how literally the definition is interpreted. I’m tempted to say that the current proposal, once you’ve implemented the above changes, is legal because a legalistic interpretation of ‘structure’ is colourable, but I’ve been told that there are limits to how far a reasonable interpretation goes.

This is a case where the individual interpretation styles of the Gensec members will make a difference, so I agree that a trial run of this legislation will be useful.)

OOC: I've put in the necessary changes. 3.b.i. has now grown extremely long but I think it's still legible?
Also, in case anybody asks, I put the data thing in a separate clause so as to avoid it being included in the exceptions of clause 5...

(OOC: Could you split 3bi into 3bi and 3bii, putting the current 3bii into 3biii?)

[Maowi]

OOC: I've put in the necessary changes. 3.b.i. has now grown extremely long but I think it's still legible?
Also, in case anybody asks, I put the data thing in a separate clause so as to avoid it being included in the exceptions of clause 5...

(OOC: Could you split 3bi into 3bi and 3bii, putting the current 3bii into 3biii?)

OOC: I've put in that suggestion, thank you. I'll probably do a trial run in the coming week unless a big problem comes up

[Drystar]

I’m still trying to figure out non-civilian. Either you have non combatants and combatants, or civilian and military. And even those lines get blurred when non uniformed people engage in military actions against uniformed military personnel. Also, a wounded combatant is still lethal unless totally incapacitated by wounds and any military would be criminally negligent for not removing them by either capture or fatality.

[Separatist Peoples]

I’m still trying to figure out non-civilian. Either you have non combatants and combatants, or civilian and military. And even those lines get blurred when non uniformed people engage in military actions against uniformed military personnel. Also, a wounded combatant is still lethal unless totally incapacitated by wounds and any military would be criminally negligent for not removing them by either capture or fatality.

"Ambassador, your assessment of wounded combatants is shortsighted and obtuse. A wounded combatant can be lethal, but is nonetheless afforded rights. However, they waive those rights when they act in contravention to their status as hors de combat. The average soldier in combat is not only required to pay attention to the difference, but is often able to do so at a glance. Your suggestion of executing the wounded just in case is overtly in violation of GAR#306.

"To the author, I believe your terminology could be more precise. I would change your terms in the following ways:

"'Medical patient' should be merely 'patient.' The term is sufficiently inclusive and will cut down on clutter in your clauses.

"'Medical staff' should be "noncombatant medical personnel" and should focus on two parts: their role in providing medical transportation or treatment, and their status as either unarmed or bearing light arms exclusively for the protection of themselves and patients currently under their care. You would also do well to reference identifying symbols entitling them to protection per GAR#334 to incorporate the limitations therein.

"I suspect 'medical facility' is sufficient as a term. However, I would define it differently. Perhaps as 'any site designated for medical treatment, triage, or transport and bearing appropriate markings per extant international law.'

"Overall, I suspect this has a great deal of promise, but the focus and definitions requires a great deal of honing. It is not clear under the current draft that individuals protected under this law are properly integrated into extant protections governed by international law."