[Draft] Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities

[Losthaven]

Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities
Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild

The General Assembly:

Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any Nationstate;

Convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a Nationstate so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions;

Further convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member states to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war;

Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:

1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation.

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action;

3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community;

4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter;

5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law.

Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities
Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild

The General Assembly:

Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any nation;

Convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a nation so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions;

Further convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member nations to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war;

Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:

1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official or accountable government body legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation.

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action;

3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community;

4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter;

5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law.

Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities
Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild

The General Assembly:

Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any nation;

Convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member nations to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war;

Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:

1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official or accountable body legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation.

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary nation before commencing hostilities or military action against that nation;

3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community;

4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter;

5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law.

Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities
Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild

The General Assembly:

Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any nation;

Convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member nations to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war;

Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:

1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official or accountable government body legally empowered to declare a commencement of hostilities on behalf of that nation.

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare the commencement of hostilities against an adversary nation before commencing violent or military action against that adversary;

3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for violence or military action aimed at their adversary openly and publicly to the international community;

4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter;

5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution requires a nation to embark on a full campaign of war against an adversary as part of a declaration of hostilities; a declaration may be limited, for instance, to a particular need for engagement on a small scale or to a temporary, localized use of force.

6. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that engages in the use of violence of military action against an adversary nation in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I actually wrote a similar draft to this a bit ago, would you be willing to cooperate on it? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=455152&p=35019301&hilit=War#p35019301

[Morover]

Handing you a slightly moist napkin with some hastily drawn words on it from the Strangers' Bar, Darin Perise picks a bit of food out from his teeth. "A fairly good draft, ambassador. I'd agree with most of the ideas here. I've left my ideas and critiques in red.

Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities
Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild Honestly, I'd argue that this would have significant strength, though that's up to debate.

The General Assembly:

Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any Nationstate; I'd probably narrow "Nationstate" down to either "nation" or "state." "Nationstate" sounds clunky and like some sort of online political simulator, as absurd as that may sound.

Convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a Nationstate so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions; I don't necessarily agree with this, though it may just be how it's worded. The concept behind it does not seem inherently bad, though perhaps a bit peculiar.

Further convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member states to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war; I can agree with this.

Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:

1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation. This is where my biggest issue comes into play. A nation may have an assembly that votes on whether or not they go to war. I'd probably change it to "government official or government body."

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action; I do think this is a necessary precaution - I'm surprised that there isn't legislation on it already, honestly. You may wish to clarify that the declaration must be made by the individual or body of individuals within a nation.

3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community; No oppositions here.

4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter; This makes it sound like it affects non-member nations as well.

5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law. Does this include not providing aid to non-member nations that violate this resolution?

[United Massachusetts]

"We are opposed to this resolution. Declaring war on a nation means acknowledging its existence as a nation. Wars against terrorist organisations should not be declared in the standard way."

[Losthaven]

I actually wrote a similar draft to this a bit ago, would you be willing to cooperate on it? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=455152&p=35019301&hilit=War#p35019301

If you have a real active draft on the subject I would be happy to collaborate. If we can agree to a common form for this type of legislation I'm happy to work as a co-author. I do feel like something this simple (which IRL was among the first of the modern acts of international law) is oddly absent from WA law.

Handing you a slightly moist napkin with some hastily drawn words on it from the Strangers' Bar, Darin Perise picks a bit of food out from his teeth. "A fairly good draft, ambassador. I'd agree with most of the ideas here. I've left my ideas and critiques in red.

Requiring A Declaration of Hostilities
Category: Global Disarmament ~*~ Strength: Mild Honestly, I'd argue that this would have significant strength, though that's up to debate.

The General Assembly:

Recognizing that the power to prosecute a war is among the most basic, essential, and consequential powers of any Nationstate; I'd probably narrow "Nationstate" down to either "nation" or "state." "Nationstate" sounds clunky and like some sort of online political simulator, as absurd as that may sound.

Convinced that it is critical for the international community to know who is empowered to make war on behalf of a Nationstate so that member nations may determine whether the war is being lawfully prosecuted in accordance with other resolutions; I don't necessarily agree with this, though it may just be how it's worded. The concept behind it does not seem inherently bad, though perhaps a bit peculiar.

Further convinced that requiring an open and public statement of the reason for going to war will reduce the likelihood of flagrantly unjustifiable wars, allow member states to better gauge the appropriateness of intervention, and thereby reduce the terrible costs associated with war; I can agree with this.

Now, therefore, the Member Nations of the World Assembly hereby enact the following provisions:

1. Requires that every nation designate by law a particular government official legally empowered to declare war on behalf of that nation. This is where my biggest issue comes into play. A nation may have an assembly that votes on whether or not they go to war. I'd probably change it to "government official or government body."

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action; I do think this is a necessary precaution - I'm surprised that there isn't legislation on it already, honestly. You may wish to clarify that the declaration must be made by the individual or body of individuals within a nation.

3. Further requires that, in a declaration of hostilities pursuant to section 2 of this law, a nation shall set forth the grounds for war openly and publicly to the international community; No oppositions here.

4. Clarifies that, notwithstanding the above sections, a nation may take any lawful action it deems necessary to protect itself and its existential interests before making a declaration of hostilities, so long as the declaration is made as soon as possible thereafter; This makes it sound like it affects non-member nations as well.

5. Prohibits a member nation from providing comfort, aid, or assistance to any nation that prosecutes a war in violation of this resolution, except as expressly required by other international law. Does this include not providing aid to non-member nations that violate this resolution?

To respond to each of your comments, in order:

1. I would certainly be open to amending the strength based on consensus that it ought to be more than mild. The reason I considered this a "mild" resolution is that the proposed resolution would not directly mandate a reduction in military spending but rather would have that effect indirectly by disincentivising unjustified military actions.

2. Happy to change the wording to "nation" from "Nationstate."

3. I'm open to suggestion on rewording the preamble. The point of that particular clause is to provide a reasoned justification for the requirement that every nation designate a government official with the power to declare war on behalf of that nation.

4. I'm glad we agree!

5. Happy to change the wording to "government official or government body" to make this more appealing to nations which do not empower individual actors to make such decisions.

6. I agree that, for strange and obscure reasons, the WA has not yet tackled this subject. I suspect people are afraid of possible contradictions with the "consensual warfare" provisions of GAR #2.

7. I'm glad we agree!

8. You're catching on to my aim. The law obviously cannot reach non-members directly and only affects member nations. However, by wording the resolution in this way, it ensures that the final clause provides an incentive for non-members to comply as well, even if legally they cannot be made to!

9. Yes, the final clause would prohibit a member nation from aiding a non-member nation in a war only if the non-member fails to make a declaration of hostilities and provide a statement of reasons as required by the law (unless, of course, the self-defense clause in section 4 applies).

"We are opposed to this resolution. Declaring war on a nation means acknowledging its existence as a nation. Wars against terrorist organisations should not be declared in the standard way."

Ah, but your eminence is forgetting that the WA has already defined "War" in GAR #2:

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates.

By law, a war can only be made between two nations. You need not worry about this resolution requiring a nation to declare "war" on terrorist organisations, crime families, hunger, etc.

[United Massachusetts]

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action;

This requires us to declare war if we commence "hostilities or military action," even against terrorist groups. We maintain our refusal to grace terrorist groups with a declaration of war.

[Drystar]

Just a small quibble here, what happens if a nation is ruled by several corporations, with none being the sole source of power in said nation. Each could even pursue entirely different foreign policies without telling the others. How would section 1 deal with that?

[Separatist Peoples]

"We are opposed to this resolution. Declaring war on a nation means acknowledging its existence as a nation. Wars against terrorist organisations should not be declared in the standard way."

"The Confederate Dominion agrees."

Bell leans over to nudge the ambassador to his right and whispers "Keep your eyes on the bible thumpers. They're gonna hate that we're on the same side."

[Morover]

"While I can appreciate what you're trying to do with non-member-states, I don't know if I can entirely approve. That being said, I can't entirely oppose either. Nonetheless, good luck to you. I may ask one of my other coworkers with more knowledge on the subject to come in for a comment."

"We are opposed to this resolution. Declaring war on a nation means acknowledging its existence as a nation. Wars against terrorist organisations should not be declared in the standard way."

"The Confederate Dominion agrees."

Bell leans over to nudge the ambassador to his right and whispers "Keep your eyes on the bible thumpers. They're gonna hate that we're on the same side."

Standing directly to Bell's right, Darin Perise chuckles nervously, while moving a bit further back from Bell. "Haha, yeah. Totally."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Responding in brief, to the OP, I'll be happy to cooperate on your draft (take the lead!). I linked my draft on the topic primarily because of the unresolved legality JAQing that is present under it. I'm firmly on the side that regulating the manner in which GA 2 'consent' is obtained is permissible. Others don't seem to agree, thinking that the mere requirement of consent makes regulations on how that consent is conveyed duplication.

[Losthaven]

2. Further requires that, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, a nation must formally declare war against an adversary before commencing hostilities or military action;

This requires us to declare war if we commence "hostilities or military action," even against terrorist groups. We maintain our refusal to grace terrorist groups with a declaration of war.

I would change "against an adversary" to "against another nation" if that level of specificity would actually assuage your concerns.

[Losthaven]

Just a small quibble here, what happens if a nation is ruled by several corporations, with none being the sole source of power in said nation. Each could even pursue entirely different foreign policies without telling the others. How would section 1 deal with that?

Had to think about this but, the way I see it, if a nation is ruled by several corporations, several pirate ships, or several co-equal branches of government with overlapping authority over going to war (or something like that) the resolution as currently written would allow that nation to idd Toft an accountable body within that framework (a majority of the corporations, for example, or a plurality of the pirate ships) authorized to declare war on behalf of the whole nation. And that would make sense for such a government: how else would a nation of corporations decide as a whole to go to war, but by a majority vote of its shareholders.

[Ard al Islam]

"We are opposed to this resolution. Declaring war on a nation means acknowledging its existence as a nation. Wars against terrorist organisations should not be declared in the standard way."

So you're playing like America.

[Ard al Islam]

Aye. Any chance to add Islamic Law to NationStates.

[Marxist Germany]

Aye. Any chance to add Islamic Law to NationStates.

"Ambassador, it seems that you're so disconnected from reality, the WA is a secular organisation and almost all ambassadors will agree this is a positive characteristic that won't change."

[Ard al Islam]

Aye. Any chance to add Islamic Law to NationStates.

"Ambassador, it seems that you're so disconnected from reality, the WA is a secular organisation and almost all ambassadors will agree this is a positive characteristic that won't change."

OOC: "Diplomat, it seems that you're so disconnected from reality, that you fail to realize that a secular organization can have religiously inspired laws, or laws that match that of a religion, especially if that is not explicitly mentioned. This is a good thing. The WA may be secular and that is definitely a bad thing. Islamic Law is perfect."

[Kenmoria]

"Ambassador, it seems that you're so disconnected from reality, the WA is a secular organisation and almost all ambassadors will agree this is a positive characteristic that won't change."

OOC: "Diplomat, it seems that you're so disconnected from reality, that you fail to realize that a secular organization can have religiously inspired laws, or laws that match that of a religion, especially if that is not explicitly mentioned. This is a good thing. The WA may be secular and that is definitely a bad thing. Islamic Law is perfect."

(OOC: You just have ‘OOC’ and speech marks with a ‘diplomat’. That makes very little sense. Also, don’t try and insert Sharia law where it doesn’t belong.)

“How does this legislation apply to mercenary forces hired by corporate or otherwise private entities? These would not be under the control of a government.”

[Ard al Islam]

He is a diplomat. Look at the words below his flag. And Islamic Law belongs everywhere.

[Separatist Peoples]

He is a diplomat. Look at the words below his flag. And Islamic Law belongs everywhere.

"It has no place here. None of us care about your god."

[Drystar]

Just a small quibble here, what happens if a nation is ruled by several corporations, with none being the sole source of power in said nation. Each could even pursue entirely different foreign policies without telling the others. How would section 1 deal with that?

Had to think about this but, the way I see it, if a nation is ruled by several corporations, several pirate ships, or several co-equal branches of government with overlapping authority over going to war (or something like that) the resolution as currently written would allow that nation to idd Toft an accountable body within that framework (a majority of the corporations, for example, or a plurality of the pirate ships) authorized to declare war on behalf of the whole nation. And that would make sense for such a government: how else would a nation of corporations decide as a whole to go to war, but by a majority vote of its shareholders.

I can see your thinking on that, but while I haven’t stumbled on any nations ruled in such a manner, it’s only a matter of time.

I don’t notice it, but is there a idea of whom the declaring party has to make the war announcement to? For example, nation A wants to declare war against Nation B, so they drive up to the border, hand the official declaration to some farmer, then signal the armor to roll across the border. Would that fall under notification?

[Ard al Islam]

He is a diplomat. Look at the words below his flag. And Islamic Law belongs everywhere.

"It has no place here. None of us care about your god."

It has a place everywhere.

[Araraukar]

He is a diplomat. Look at the words below his flag. And Islamic Law belongs everywhere.

OOC: By that logic you are an attaché and I am a Postmaster-General. Will you address me as one?

[Separatist Peoples]

"It has no place here. None of us care about your god."

It has a place everywhere.

"Only if everywhere has a garbage can, ambassador. Your religion represents an extreme minority in the World Assembly. It has no place dictating policy in an avowedly secular organization, least of all to secular states. If your god doesn't like it, he can snap his fingers and change the WA's mission statement to so reflect.

"Now that we can focus on relevant matters, the C.D.S.P. insists on an exception based on the United Massachusetts delegation's observation. Recognizing nonstates as states is dangerous. "

[Youssath]

"It has no place here. None of us care about your god."

It has a place everywhere.

"While the honourable gentleman right here has the right to defend and practice his religion as it is his "way of life" and The Republic of Youssath respects all religion of all classes for the betterment of world hegemony and the World Assembly, may we ask the Ambassador to refrain from making bold statements that might infringe on the very code of law that nations found themselves upon. Islamic teaching and worship is a way of life and we agree that it should be respected and represented in the World Assembly, but any forms of violent Islamic forms or its laws constitute a direct threat to the republics of this free world."

"Only if everywhere has a garbage can, ambassador. Your religion represents an extreme minority in the World Assembly. It has no place dictating policy in an avowedly secular organization, least of all to secular states. If your god doesn't like it, he can snap his fingers and change the WA's mission statement to so reflect.

"And so is homosexuals and transgenders in the World Assembly, which represents at least 0.5% of the world's population. But we still have damning resolutions like GAR #467 and others protecting this so-called 'trending' minority. If religious groups are just as equally in the minority as transgenders, shouldn't we make a conscientious effort into at least representing these groups at best?"

"Regardless, I digress from my original speech. I would advise on everyone to focus on the agenda in question today and not concern ourselves with these 'peppy talk'. Youssath will gladly support this resolution requiring a declaration of hostilities in order to conduct wars against other states but like what the other ambassadors have raised, we would like to see to it that terrorist organizations recognized by national governments (not international, since these terrorist organizations can be illegally funded by other states and can diplomatically block any proceedings to label them as 'terrorists') are excluded from recognition as 'states' in order to promote national security."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Only if everywhere has a garbage can, ambassador. Your religion represents an extreme minority in the World Assembly. It has no place dictating policy in an avowedly secular organization, least of all to secular states. If your god doesn't like it, he can snap his fingers and change the WA's mission statement to so reflect.

"And so is homosexuals and transgenders in the World Assembly, which represents at least 0.5% of the world's population. But we still have damning resolutions like GAR #467 and others protecting this so-called 'trending' minority. If religious groups are just as equally in the minority as transgenders, shouldn't we make a conscientious effort into at least representing these groups at best?"

"Protecting individual liberty is not the same thing as adopting radical religious law, ambassador. And I know you know the difference. The ambassador's government is welcome to obey any religious law he wishes, subject to the limitations of international law. In that way, he is as protected as the minority groups you have cited."