[PASSED] Wartime Healthcare Protections

[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.

"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.

Many nations have a litany of military heroes that have functioned in combat situations with life threatening wounds, being in such a condition does not automatically remove a soldier from combat. Also, is not the purpose of medical treatment to return said combatants back to their roles as soon as possible?

Now I have never suggested “executing” wounded soldiers as you so ignorantly suggest. If you read my statement again, I said captured or killed. A soldier with a wound can still fight, in fact is expected to resist if at all possible. I would no way expect soldiers of any nation to absorb casualties trying to capture any enemy combatants who resist to not resort to lethal force. That being said, if an enemy combatant does abide by accords and does not resist then said person should be treated within the framework of the rules of war.

I’m also not disagreeing with the draft, I’m merely seeking clarification of the terms used.

[Separatist Peoples]

Many nations have a litany of military heroes that have functioned in combat situations with life threatening wounds, being in such a condition does not automatically remove a soldier from combat.

"And for every one of those stories, there are a hundred or a thousand soldiers who did not continue to fight through their mortal wounds. Unconvincing argument is unconvincing, ambassador."

Also, is not the purpose of medical treatment to return said combatants back to their roles as soon as possible?

"You can treat prisoners of war, I am told."

Now I have never suggested “executing” wounded soldiers as you so ignorantly suggest. If you read my statement again, I said captured or killed.

"Killing a wounded soldier who is not fighting back is just as much an execution as if it was ordered by a judge, ambassador. Don't play coy with me."

A soldier with a wound can still fight, in fact is expected to resist if at all possible. I would no way expect soldiers of any nation to absorb casualties trying to capture any enemy combatants who resist to not resort to lethal force.

"Extant WA law deals with this, ambassador."

That being said, if an enemy combatant does abide by accords and does not resist then said person should be treated within the framework of the rules of war.

"The law I cited already governs this. The circumstance you alluded to previously was illegal under aforementioned law."

I’m also not disagreeing with the draft, I’m merely seeking clarification of the terms used.

"Impressive backpedaling, ambassador. Not impressive enough to fool me, but impressive nonetheless."

[Drystar]

Many nations have a litany of military heroes that have functioned in combat situations with life threatening wounds, being in such a condition does not automatically remove a soldier from combat.

"And for every one of those stories, there are a hundred or a thousand soldiers who did not continue to fight through their mortal wounds. Unconvincing argument is unconvincing, ambassador."

Also, is not the purpose of medical treatment to return said combatants back to their roles as soon as possible?

"You can treat prisoners of war, I am told."

Now I have never suggested “executing” wounded soldiers as you so ignorantly suggest. If you read my statement again, I said captured or killed.

"Killing a wounded soldier who is not fighting back is just as much an execution as if it was ordered by a judge, ambassador. Don't play coy with me."

A soldier with a wound can still fight, in fact is expected to resist if at all possible. I would no way expect soldiers of any nation to absorb casualties trying to capture any enemy combatants who resist to not resort to lethal force.

"Extant WA law deals with this, ambassador."

That being said, if an enemy combatant does abide by accords and does not resist then said person should be treated within the framework of the rules of war.

"The law I cited already governs this. The circumstance you alluded to previously was illegal under aforementioned law."

I’m also not disagreeing with the draft, I’m merely seeking clarification of the terms used.

"Impressive backpedaling, ambassador. Not impressive enough to fool me, but impressive nonetheless."

All this quibbling, and yet I still don't have an answer. What is the definition of a non-civilian. If they're uniformed and carry arms, they are some sort of para military group, and doing this opens themselves to trouble. Since you seem informed, perhaps you can define it. You see, I can't really find any previous resolutions that cover "non civilian" in a combat zone.

Does "non civilian" mean medical corp? If so, just call it that. Also, capture of medical units I believe is allowed under the laws of war. Also, if said WA approved medical units are treating combatants, what assurances to either side have that the said soldiers won't conduct operations from these medical sites once they've recovered enough?

Also, if they're treating the injured with no respect to what side, or what status, why the secret locations only known to a committee? It would seem prudent to notify all powers in the area of the locations, mark them as what they are so there can be no mistakes made. And it's not like the locations will remain a secret for any amount of time. Any general worth their salt would have scouting parties locate them and mark them for observation. It would seem in the best interest of all parties to have them known, so that any seeking aid could make their way there. And really, if you want to control the neutrality of said medical transports, they need to be marked as such. An unmarked transport could be carrying anything, and I'd not blame a platoon leader for calling in a mortar strike on some undisclosed location in the middle of the night that had no markings on it, with uniformed individuals carrying arms.

Also, I believe it's Clause 7, you should add storage of military supplies, non medical, to that list of things that'll get them in trouble. It's well and good to keep medical supplies on hand, but if they get in trouble for training troops, I'd expect storing crates of war making materials would be as bad.

[Maowi]

"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."

Thank you for the feedback, ambassador. I have incorporated all of your points into the draft almost exactly.'

All this quibbling, and yet I still don't have an answer. What is the definition of a non-civilian. If they're uniformed and carry arms, they are some sort of para military group, and doing this opens themselves to trouble. Since you seem informed, perhaps you can define it. You see, I can't really find any previous resolutions that cover "non civilian" in a combat zone.

'It seems to me that the definition of a 'non-civilian' should be pretty clear: I would say a person currently employed in the army is a non-civilian. They do not have to be physically carrying arms 24/7 (or however units of time function in your nation) to be considered a non-civilian 24/7.

Does "non civilian" mean medical corp? If so, just call it that. Also, capture of medical units I believe is allowed under the laws of war. Also, if said WA approved medical units are treating combatants, what assurances to either side have that the said soldiers won't conduct operations from these medical sites once they've recovered enough?

'Perhaps this would be best addressed by reworking clause 7 to allow military forces to address any sort of military operations taking place inside medical facilities, although I'll have to be cautious to phrase this so that the treatment of combatants itself can't be considered a military operation. I will have to put more thought to that...

Also, if they're treating the injured with no respect to what side, or what status, why the secret locations only known to a committee? It would seem prudent to notify all powers in the area of the locations, mark them as what they are so there can be no mistakes made. And it's not like the locations will remain a secret for any amount of time. Any general worth their salt would have scouting parties locate them and mark them for observation. It would seem in the best interest of all parties to have them known, so that any seeking aid could make their way there. And really, if you want to control the neutrality of said medical transports, they need to be marked as such. An unmarked transport could be carrying anything, and I'd not blame a platoon leader for calling in a mortar strike on some undisclosed location in the middle of the night that had no markings on it, with uniformed individuals carrying arms.

'The purpose of the secrecy is to avoid handing the location of every single one of a member nation's medical facilities to a non-compliant member nation, or indeed to a non-member nation, on a platter, as this could lead to the destruction of all a member nation's medical facilities and so to a national humanitarian crisis. However, in the newest draft, a mandate for medical facilities desiring protection to be marked has been included. This, I believe, doesn't give nations a conveniently prepared hit list, but it does hopefully prevent unintentional mistakes on the part of military forces.

Also, I believe it's Clause 7, you should add storage of military supplies, non medical, to that list of things that'll get them in trouble. It's well and good to keep medical supplies on hand, but if they get in trouble for training troops, I'd expect storing crates of war making materials would be as bad.

'I do intend to rethink clause 7, as I've said in response to another of your points, and I'll make sure this is covered.'

[Drystar]

"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."

Thank you for the feedback, ambassador. I have incorporated all of your points into the draft almost exactly.'

All this quibbling, and yet I still don't have an answer. What is the definition of a non-civilian. If they're uniformed and carry arms, they are some sort of para military group, and doing this opens themselves to trouble. Since you seem informed, perhaps you can define it. You see, I can't really find any previous resolutions that cover "non civilian" in a combat zone.

'It seems to me that the definition of a 'non-civilian' should be pretty clear: I would say a person currently employed in the army is a non-civilian. They do not have to be physically carrying arms 24/7 (or however units of time function in your nation) to be considered a non-civilian 24/7.

Does "non civilian" mean medical corp? If so, just call it that. Also, capture of medical units I believe is allowed under the laws of war. Also, if said WA approved medical units are treating combatants, what assurances to either side have that the said soldiers won't conduct operations from these medical sites once they've recovered enough?

'Perhaps this would be best addressed by reworking clause 7 to allow military forces to address any sort of military operations taking place inside medical facilities, although I'll have to be cautious to phrase this so that the treatment of combatants itself can't be considered a military operation. I will have to put more thought to that...

Also, if they're treating the injured with no respect to what side, or what status, why the secret locations only known to a committee? It would seem prudent to notify all powers in the area of the locations, mark them as what they are so there can be no mistakes made. And it's not like the locations will remain a secret for any amount of time. Any general worth their salt would have scouting parties locate them and mark them for observation. It would seem in the best interest of all parties to have them known, so that any seeking aid could make their way there. And really, if you want to control the neutrality of said medical transports, they need to be marked as such. An unmarked transport could be carrying anything, and I'd not blame a platoon leader for calling in a mortar strike on some undisclosed location in the middle of the night that had no markings on it, with uniformed individuals carrying arms.

'The purpose of the secrecy is to avoid handing the location of every single one of a member nation's medical facilities to a non-compliant member nation, or indeed to a non-member nation, on a platter, as this could lead to the destruction of all a member nation's medical facilities and so to a national humanitarian crisis. However, in the newest draft, a mandate for medical facilities desiring protection to be marked has been included. This, I believe, doesn't give nations a conveniently prepared hit list, but it does hopefully prevent unintentional mistakes on the part of military forces.

Also, I believe it's Clause 7, you should add storage of military supplies, non medical, to that list of things that'll get them in trouble. It's well and good to keep medical supplies on hand, but if they get in trouble for training troops, I'd expect storing crates of war making materials would be as bad.

'I do intend to rethink clause 7, as I've said in response to another of your points, and I'll make sure this is covered.'

I do thank you for the kind response. I'm still tied up on that non-civilian designation though. I've gone back and reread after this last post so I can understand your intentions a bit better, and while I now understand your designation, non civilian can be a huge loophole. I can see terrorists, criminals, or rebels from a civil war claiming to be non civilian to get out from justice. As far as I know, non military personal attached to military for whatever roles the military doesn't either want to do or can't are considered civilian. That also gives them greater protection legal wise if need be, since they don't normally fall under military justice rules. And I'd be wary of civilians carrying arms in a combat zone, without the legal protections afforded to someone in uniform. It wouldn't be that hard to call them spies or worse and line them up to be shot. Perhaps someone brighter then me can offer a solution, because I don't think it's impossible, just we may not being thinking the same terms. Possibly just define Non-civilian in there somewhere would probably work.

I also didn't realize your intent was aimed at the belligerents own facilities, I was thinking it was some different group altogether, which is why I was wondering about the secrecy part. Even so, it would seem best for all parties involved to refrain from attacking medical facilities just due to all parties needing to use them, which is why permanent locations such as hospitals should be designated. I see how your draft would work for mobile hospitals, aid stations, and the like, but they'd still need some sort of identifier to protect themselves. Plus, if the enemy is beating the doors of your hospitals down, you've pretty much bit the pooch as it is.

[Araraukar]

'It seems to me that the definition of a 'non-civilian' should be pretty clear: I would say a person currently employed in the army is a non-civilian.'

IC: "Even if they did not carry weapons, had never carried weapons, and never intended to carry weapons, nor would their role in the military require them to carry weapons? Honestly, how would you be able to tell apart a civilian doctor and an army doctor, if both were wearing white coats?"

OOC: The definition of medical personnel was at least originally changed exactly to protect non-combat doctors and nurses who still work for the military

[Kenmoria]

“1a doesn’t require that the patient is currently being treated, or that the injury is severe, so a person at home with a papercut would qualify.”

[Maowi]

“1a doesn’t require that the patient is currently being treated, or that the injury is severe, so a person at home with a papercut would qualify.”

'Indeed; but clause 4 specifies that patients must be 'inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing identifying symbols', clause 6 can only apply to patients who have been treated in a medical facility and clause 7 only really affects patients inside a medical facility.'

I do thank you for the kind response. I'm still tied up on that non-civilian designation though. I've gone back and reread after this last post so I can understand your intentions a bit better, and while I now understand your designation, non civilian can be a huge loophole. I can see terrorists, criminals, or rebels from a civil war claiming to be non civilian to get out from justice. As far as I know, non military personal attached to military for whatever roles the military doesn't either want to do or can't are considered civilian. That also gives them greater protection legal wise if need be, since they don't normally fall under military justice rules.

OOC: The definition of medical personnel was at least originally changed exactly to protect non-combat doctors and nurses who still work for the military

OOC: If I define a non-civilian as a person in the employ of the military, that should hopefully protect non-combat doctors and nurses who still work for the military and exclude criminals etc.

And I'd be wary of civilians carrying arms in a combat zone, without the legal protections afforded to someone in uniform. It wouldn't be that hard to call them spies or worse and line them up to be shot.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't see what this has to do with this proposal? Civilians are already protected under a separate resolution, whether they are or aren't carrying arms.

I also didn't realize your intent was aimed at the belligerents own facilities, I was thinking it was some different group altogether, which is why I was wondering about the secrecy part. Even so, it would seem best for all parties involved to refrain from attacking medical facilities just due to all parties needing to use them, which is why permanent locations such as hospitals should be designated. I see how your draft would work for mobile hospitals, aid stations, and the like, but they'd still need some sort of identifier to protect themselves. Plus, if the enemy is beating the doors of your hospitals down, you've pretty much bit the pooch as it is.

I'm just worried that attacking nations would purposefully destroy their opponent's hospitals and other facilities to try and prompt surrender, and them knowing the location of every single medical facility in the nation would put a lot of power and leverage in their hands. I completely agree that everyone knowing the locations of all the facilities would avoid the scenario in 3.b.ii., but I can't see it not being abused big time.

IC: "Even if they did not carry weapons, had never carried weapons, and never intended to carry weapons, nor would their role in the military require them to carry weapons? Honestly, how would you be able to tell apart a civilian doctor and an army doctor, if both were wearing white coats?"

'I do realise it's not completely solid and objective, but the draft does currently require non-civilian patients and medical personnel to bear identifying symbols to distinguish them from civilian doctors. This in the hope that good-faith compliance and the Compliance Commission in conjunction with the Independent Adjudicative Office can identify cases in which the symbols were not sufficiently clear for members of the military to recognise an army doctor as such.'


OOC: I've also edited clause 7 to hopefully cover an appropriate range of actions which may be targeted by military forces.

[Drystar]

There is a distinct separation of civilian and military when it comes to rules of war. As long as a civilian acts as a civilian, they are treated with full accordance of those laws. When they take up arms against a force, but don’t wear uniforms, or markings that designate some sort of organization that will respect the rules of warfare, then they can be considered criminals. That’s why I was suggesting you be careful. Brigands, bandits, and pirates don’t deserve protection under the rules of war. I’m just pointing out medical staff should have some ways of clearly marking what they are, either some sort of uniform, or even a hat with medical symbols stitched into it, so there’s no mistake what they are.

Edit: I am perhaps being a little to nitpicking, on what is obviously a very good idea. Don’t mind me at all, I’d like to see this come to a vote.

[Maowi]

There is a distinct separation of civilian and military when it comes to rules of war. As long as a civilian acts as a civilian, they are treated with full accordance of those laws. When they take up arms against a force, but don’t wear uniforms, or markings that designate some sort of organization that will respect the rules of warfare, then they can be considered criminals. That’s why I was suggesting you be careful. Brigands, bandits, and pirates don’t deserve protection under the rules of war. I’m just pointing out medical staff should have some ways of clearly marking what they are, either some sort of uniform, or even a hat with medical symbols stitched into it, so there’s no mistake what they are.

Edit: I am perhaps being a little to nitpicking, on what is obviously a very good idea. Don’t mind me at all, I’d like to see this come to a vote.

OOC: No, thanks for giving feedback.
Clauses 4.a. and 4.b. require medical staff to bear identifying symbols in order to qualify for protection under this proposal. It would be in their own best interests to be safe and wear very clear symbols which can't really be mistaken for anything else.

---

I've added a definition for non-civilian but I've realised I'm over the character limit so I'm working on cutting the preamble down, and I'll probably replace the term I currently have for medical staff because it's long and it's used a lot...

[Separatist Peoples]

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the basic protections already afforded by this body to medical facilities inside areas of conflict through GAR #121;

Concerned, however, that said protections are so minimal as to necessitate and require new and more effective legislation on this area;

Reaffirming its disapproval Disapproving of the dishonesty and immoralityperfidy inherent in the attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are fairly and comprehensively safeguarded against uncalled-for violence during war;

Also noting with approvalApproving that civilians are already protected from violence from member nations' military forces by GAR #317;


Hereby enacts the following:

[*]Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. A ‘Patient’ i is a person suffering from any type of injury or disease, including , but not limited to,physical injury and psychological damage;
   
   
2. ‘non-combatant medical personnel’ as people: are those who providing provide medical transportation or treatment,
   who are either unarmed or bearing light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care;
1. A ‘Medical facility’ is a site used for medical treatment, triage, or transport and bearing clearly visible markings indicating such;
   
2. 'Non-civilian' as in the employ of a nation's military forces;

[*]Requires Member nations intending tocarry out area bombardment bombard and areato notify the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) of thelocation of the planned area bombardmenttarget area;


[*]Charges theThe IHACC withmust:

1. documenting the locations of all medical facilities and their associated infrastructure in areas of war and in areas upon which war has been declaredconflict areas (this information may not be revealed to any person outside of the committee);
   
2. maintain strict confidentiality of such information within the organization.
   
3. notifying advise member nations whether the planned area bombardment has a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
   
   1. Member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment bombard areas within whose intended target area if the member nation knows of the existence ofa medical facility or its associated infrastructure; otherwise, unless that member nations' military forces must carry out an area bombardment in order to prevent significant harm to their own personnel or citizens may they do so without confirmation of permission from the IHACC;
      although
      Notwithstanding the above, should the IHACC notify the member nation intending to carry out an area bombardment that said bombardment would have a high chance of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure, the member nation's military forces may not carry out the area bombardment; otherwise,
      
4. member nations' military forces may not carry out an area bombardment on another nation until the IHACC notifies them that the planned area bombardment does not have a high risk of damaging a medical facility or its associated infrastructure;
5. evaluating, objectively and methodically, evaluate whether member nations whose military forces carried out area bombardments acted in accordance with 3.b., and did so in good faith;should this not be the case,If not, the IHACC must present any relevant evidence, with the conclusions drawn from such and the arguments used to arrive there, to the WACCWorld Assembly Compliance Commission as a violation of international law;
6. notifying the administrators of any medical facilities inside member nations at risk of damage through a planned area bombardment of said risk and aiding the evacuation of these medical facilities where such help is sought;

[*]ForbidsMember nations’ military forces may not:

1. from usinguse violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such;
   
2. from using use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such; and
   
3. from attemptingattempt to access medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation;

[*]Creates exceptions theNotwithstandingthe mandates of clause 4, where such action:

1. is a response to open aggression against them by non-civilian patients or non-combatant medical personnel, in which case they may respond with the minimum force needed to remove the threat only; or
   
2. is rendered, in the strictest sense, an absolute necessity by military strategy;

[*]then member states may use in which case the minimum force possible must be used to achieve the strategical necessity. The use of vViolence against non-civilian patients or non-combatant medical personnel for the purposes of reprisal shall isnever be considered a military necessity by member nations;[/list]

[*]Forbids Member nations' military forces may not from changingchangne medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation;


[*]Forbids Member nations' military forces may not deliberately damaging damage medical facilities, their associated infrastructure, or their supplies, unless the medical facility is also beingused for the advancement of military aims unrelated to medical treatment, triage, or transport, in which case member nations' military forces may damage the medical facility only whilemust makingmake a good-faith effort to do so to the smallest possible detriment of the patients and non-combatant medical personnel and while attempting to target only the actions advancing military aims unrelated to medical treatment, triage, or transport.[/list][/box]

[Araraukar]

Member nations intending tocarry out area bombardment bombard and area

OOC: I think "an" rather than "and".

[Maowi]

OOC: Thanks for all the suggestions, I made all the changes almost exactly although on a few cases I tried to make it fit a bit better grammatically...I also changed the title in the hope of better matching the content, although that could probably be improved.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 3 subclauses start with lowercase letters but the sub-subclauses start with capital letters. Probably one or the other throughout the whole should be chosen.

Also, as far as I can see, 4.b. is the only one specifying "non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel" - does that mean that clause doesn't apply to civilian non-combatant medical personnel? And all the others don't apply to non-civilian ones?

[Maowi]

OOC: Clause 3 subclauses start with lowercase letters but the sub-subclauses start with capital letters. Probably one or the other throughout the whole should be chosen.

OOC: The reason for that is that the subclauses follow on from 'The IHACC must:' in the same sentence, whereas the sub-subclauses start new sentences.

Also, as far as I can see, 4.b. is the only one specifying "non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel" - does that mean that clause doesn't apply to civilian non-combatant medical personnel? And all the others don't apply to non-civilian ones?

4.b. doesn't apply to civilian non-combatant medical personnel because they'd already be covered by GAR #317. In 5.a., the non-civilian in front of patients is supposed to apply to non-combatant medical personnel as well (for the same reason), but I should probably repeat it to clarify ... which is a bummer because I'm still something like 20 characters over the limit. Just realised I should also add that to the last line of clause 5 (thanks for pointing that out.) I think clauses 6 and 7 make sense if they apply to all non-combatant medical personnel, although I don't see why it currently wouldn't apply to non-civilian ones as well as civilian ones?

[Drystar]

You could probably just do away with the whole non civilian thing and just have two categories of medical personnel. To be military they’d have to be in the chain of command at some point, otherwise they’re civilian.

[Maowi]

You could probably just do away with the whole non civilian thing and just have two categories of medical personnel. To be military they’d have to be in the chain of command at some point, otherwise they’re civilian.

I'm really sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this?

[Drystar]

You could probably just do away with the whole non civilian thing and just have two categories of medical personnel. To be military they’d have to be in the chain of command at some point, otherwise they’re civilian.

I'm really sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this?

Oh sorry, just call them civilian medical personnel, or military medical personnel. Even though a civilian may be employed by the military, since he’s not in the chain of command, he’s just a civilian employee.

[Fecaw]

3- Why does this only refer to bombardment and not other attacks that could be equally damaging?
4a,4b- Why have to separate clauses for non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel and non-civilian patients when you could combine them into one?
4c, 6- Authorisation from who?

[Maowi]

I'm really sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this?

Oh sorry, just call them civilian medical personnel, or military medical personnel. Even though a civilian may be employed by the military, since he’s not in the chain of command, he’s just a civilian employee.

I guess that's pretty much what I've got already, as I define 'non-civilian', so the actual term used doesn't really matter. That being said, perhaps your way of framing it is better, I could put that in.

3- Why does this only refer to bombardment and not other attacks that could be equally damaging?

I guess bombardment was the only scenario I really envisioned in my head, but you're right here. I'll try and find a way to be more comprehensive and cover all low-accuracy, wide-range attacks without using up too many words...I need to cut down anyway, I'm something like 20 characters over

4a,4b- Why have to separate clauses for non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel and non-civilian patients when you could combine them into one?

I did that in order to prevent any ambiguity and loopholes in the wording, to be clear that the proposal would apply to non-combatant medical personnel and patients, both of which non-civilian, and that it would apply to either and to both.

4c, 6- Authorisation from who?

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it so that it is specified.

[Maowi]

OOC: I apologise for the double post, but I've made a new draft and would be grateful for any more feedback. I'm looking to potentially move towards submission fairly soon.
The proposal should hopefully be within the character limit now. I added a definition for 'area bombardment' to hopefully be more comprehensive, but it's worth noting that attacks that don't classify as area bombardment are protected later on in the proposal.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 1d would be clearer with ‘employment’ rather than ‘employ’. Otherwise, this looks good to go.”

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I apologise for the double post, but I've made a new draft and would be grateful for any more feedback. I'm looking to potentially move towards submission fairly soon.

OOC
In that case I'll give it a "last minute" check for legality tomorrow, all being well.

[Maowi]

“Clause 1d would be clearer with ‘employment’ rather than ‘employ’. Otherwise, this looks good to go.”

'Ah, thank you for pointing that out.'

OOC: I apologise for the double post, but I've made a new draft and would be grateful for any more feedback. I'm looking to potentially move towards submission fairly soon.

OOC
In that case I'll give it a "last minute" check for legality tomorrow, all being well.

OOC: Thank you. No need to hurry; I'm going to have to be away from NS for a bit so I don't intend to submit until after August 21.

[Drystar]

I still find clause 2 and 3.b problematic. You’ve a must statement for a member nation, but no penalty if they don’t. And 3.b has no repercussions for the agency if it does divulge the information. Is there other resolutions that tie in to those to offer recourse?