[DEFEATED] Preventing Unjust Warfare

[Kenmoria]

“Preventing abuses of human rights does count as a legitimate cause for war according to this proposal. Therefore, assuming you first try diplomatic approaches to solve this problem, you have no extant treaties forbidding war, and the expected returns of the action will outweigh the costs, your action is perfectly legal.

I am assuming you mean the right to a will and testament by ‘right of the will’, which Kenmoria does not restrict at all. If you mean something else that is not internationally recognised, then your actions shan’t be legal.”

"No," he looked like he was about to preach, "The right to a will and testament would be 'the right to a will,' not 'the right of the will.' The right of the will is the protection of the right to live ones life how they fail to see it, and the recognition that the needs of society are as garbage when compared to the needs of individuals. For example. My name is Kelmusdriel nos Alarmanzis, and my position is that of a minister in the foreign affairs department of Velstrania. I, therefore, know quite a lot of information that I generally don't make public, because it might damage our reputation...however if we were asked by a Velsturman citizen to make it public he has enitiated his right of the will, and therefore the wishes of the government must come second to the right. Likewise, a military base is generally off limits. A citizen asks to go look around in it, he must be allowed to because this is his will. The government would really like to ban something for the protection of society...it can't, because it is the will of some people that it not be banned, and thus it must not be. This is the way our nation is ran in accordance with the wishes of God himself, and due to the global tyranny of much of the world groups of enterprising young crusaders regularly go, with or without the governments blessing, to liberate those living under the tyrants dominion. Do you understand now?"

“That is most certainly against the rules of this legislation. For a start, no nongovernmental groups are allowed to conduct war, so those crusaders must obtain the permission and formally work on behalf of the government, rather than by themselves. This point is certain. Since the right to the will is not internationally known, Velsrania is debatably against the rules on a second count, as this right is not a valid casus belli.”

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"No," he looked like he was about to preach, "The right to a will and testament would be 'the right to a will,' not 'the right of the will.' The right of the will is the protection of the right to live ones life how they fail to see it, and the recognition that the needs of society are as garbage when compared to the needs of individuals. For example. My name is Kelmusdriel nos Alarmanzis, and my position is that of a minister in the foreign affairs department of Velstrania. I, therefore, know quite a lot of information that I generally don't make public, because it might damage our reputation...however if we were asked by a Velsturman citizen to make it public he has enitiated his right of the will, and therefore the wishes of the government must come second to the right. Likewise, a military base is generally off limits. A citizen asks to go look around in it, he must be allowed to because this is his will. The government would really like to ban something for the protection of society...it can't, because it is the will of some people that it not be banned, and thus it must not be. This is the way our nation is ran in accordance with the wishes of God himself, and due to the global tyranny of much of the world groups of enterprising young crusaders regularly go, with or without the governments blessing, to liberate those living under the tyrants dominion. Do you understand now?"

“That is most certainly against the rules of this legislation. For a start, no nongovernmental groups are allowed to conduct war, so those crusaders must obtain the permission and formally work on behalf of the government, rather than by themselves. This point is certain. Since the right to the will is not internationally known, Velsrania is debatably against the rules on a second count, as this right is not a valid casus belli.”

"But you see," the minister looked sad, "We...can't do this. You see, preventing enterprising groups of young Velsturmen from going on crusade would be denying them the right of the will, would it not? And that is important. Very important. Yes it is!"

[Separatist Peoples]

“That is most certainly against the rules of this legislation. For a start, no nongovernmental groups are allowed to conduct war, so those crusaders must obtain the permission and formally work on behalf of the government, rather than by themselves. This point is certain. Since the right to the will is not internationally known, Velsrania is debatably against the rules on a second count, as this right is not a valid casus belli.”

"But you see," the minister looked sad, "We...can't do this. You see, preventing enterprising groups of young Velsturmen from going on crusade would be denying them the right of the will, would it not? And that is important. Very important. Yes it is!"

"Don't you see the clause at the end that says Velsturmen are exempt? Its very small and only shines in holy light for the faithful."

[Youssath]

"Don't you see the clause at the end that says Velsturmen are exempt? Its very small and only shines in holy light for the faithful."

"Wait, it does?! Why can't we get our own personal exemption clauses into the GA resolutions?"

[Marxist Germany]

"Don't you see the clause at the end that says Velsturmen are exempt? Its very small and only shines in holy light for the faithful."

"Wait, it does?! Why can't we get our own personal exemption clauses into the GA resolutions?"

"Ambassador, that was a joke."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"But you see," the minister looked sad, "We...can't do this. You see, preventing enterprising groups of young Velsturmen from going on crusade would be denying them the right of the will, would it not? And that is important. Very important. Yes it is!"

"Don't you see the clause at the end that says Velsturmen are exempt? Its very small and only shines in holy light for the faithful."

"Does the general assembly seek to deny the right of the will?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Don't you see the clause at the end that says Velsturmen are exempt? Its very small and only shines in holy light for the faithful."

"Wait, it does?! Why can't we get our own personal exemption clauses into the GA resolutions?"

"Because you haven't payed the troll toll."

"Wait, it does?! Why can't we get our own personal exemption clauses into the GA resolutions?"

"Ambassador, that was a joke."

"I have never joked in my life."

"Don't you see the clause at the end that says Velsturmen are exempt? Its very small and only shines in holy light for the faithful."

"Does the general assembly seek to deny the right of the will?"

"Yes. But not for Velstrumen."

[Kenmoria]

“As this is at vote, I must declare my vote against. Much as I like the concepts espoused here, the restriction of non-state actors from starting war seems too much in my eyes. I am particularly disappointed by the lack of exceptions for subnational authorities.”

[West Carlisten]

West Carlisten would like to ask how transnational should be understood and how Clause 3 should be enforced.
If for example people were to rebel in a neighbour state and, suring the course of this rebellion, happen to cross the border into another state, would you understand that to be transnational? Also, we would like clarification on how Clause 3 should be enforced.

This section is of concern to us as the border with our neighbour is for the most part unmarked and consists of a mountain which means that it would be easy for fighters to cross the border accidentally. Furthermore, we and our naighbour have agreed to make part of the mountain a neutral zone - border control takes place outside of this zone and law enforcement is a shared responsibility, with offenders being handed to the nation from which they entered the zone, unles they are citizens of the other nation.
Naturally we would be disinclined to actively involve ourselves in such a conflict as long as it does not directly affect our country, therefore we would like clarification on the general interpretation.

Finally, we would like to note that, if we choose to vote in favour, it is with the understanding that good faith enforcement does not mean that members should necessarily enforce Clause 3 in all circumstances. We believe that Members may in good faith choose to not enforce Clause 3 if it would require military involvement or if it would require them to act against people who are neither citizens nor residents of the Member state and who have no active base of operations in the Member state, except where there is an explicit international agreement in place to arrest and extradite such persons.

[Aurreliae]

The Empire of Aurelia would like to announce it's utter opposition to such a nonsensical proposal made by the WA to cut the strength of the many proud nations and their militaries.

[Youssath]

"As much as we commend on your noble intentions to bring peace and goodwill to the international community, this legislation that you have passed, however, reflects none of it and we are absolutely dismayed by the prominent issues that have been brought up to our attention whilst reviewing the resolution at hand."

The Youssthian Ambassador hands you a note with the official seal on it. It looks quite important.

"As such, I regret to inform you that our government will have no choice but to reject this bill in its entirety until further revisions are made."

[The Great Boom]

"Bravo United Massachusetts.

The trick with this sort of bill is always tailoring it to the edge cases, and you've more than met our standards."

[Youssath]

"Bravo United Massachusetts.

The trick with this sort of bill is always tailoring it to the edge cases, and you've more than met our standards."

"If meeting your standards mean initiating transnational military action for the purpose of 'the fulfillment of binding and pre-existing national obligations under treaty OR international law' under Clause 2a(iv), and that nations are hereby allowed to declare war on each other under the pretence of 'fulfilling immoral treaties by other rogue nations concerning the national sovereignty and independence of a non-party to the treaty', then you my friend, might need to review your standards once more. For as you see, I think your standards has collapsed below the moral threshold by advocating for this resolution."

OOC: This resolution is absolutely dangerous, most specifically Clause 2a(iv) and its interpretations. There won't be any support by me unless you can address this issue. I would give you an honest argument about it, but everything that I can think of from my head is all listed here and I think you will be able to see the apparent issues of this resolution.

[Mettaton-EX]

this proposal relies almost exclusively on subjective criteria and is impossible to enforce with any degree of consistency. voted against.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

“As this is at vote, I must declare my vote against. Much as I like the concepts espoused here, the restriction of non-state actors from starting war seems too much in my eyes. I am particularly disappointed by the lack of exceptions for subnational authorities.”

"I must agree. In my nations case, it would utterly exclude the possibility of us defending ourselves. The Greater Vakolicci Haven's military is made up of the capital defence forces, which protect only the capital and have zero offensive power. As a confederation of independently-governed nations, we rely on our various member states, namely the Vakolicci Haven, Celeria and Velstrania in order to go to war."

[Snofjogur]

Despite being a peaceful nation, or precisely because we are a peaceful nation, we must vote against this resolution in the hope that a better one will soon be drafted. This resolution seems like little more than a formalisation of war, but it does little to prevent war and, in fact, in explicitly allowing war to be declared when “widespread (...) abuse of human rights” (which is a term that can be, and has been, interpreted very loosely) are occurring or about to occur, provides violent nations with an undisputable legal excuse to initiate war.

[DACOROMANIA]

(...) "initiating transnational military action" (...) excepting for (...)

A new way for transnational invasions to be permitted. It's obvious.

-Pr: "Dear General, give me legal reasons to invade... err... expand beyond our borders."
-Gn: "Yes, Mr. President, understood."
-Sg: "General, we found it. It's about human rights abuses in every nation in the world."
-Gn: "Oh, not quite good. What about us?"
-Sg: "Err... that's really a problem. We could become a target ourselves."

[Youssath]

A new way for transnational invasions to be permitted. It's obvious.

-Pr: "Dear General, give me legal reasons to invade... err... expand beyond our borders."
-Gn: "Yes, Mr. President, understood."
-Sg: "General, we found it. It's about human rights abuses in every nation in the world."
-Gn: "Oh, not quite good. What about us?"
-Sg: "Err... that's really a problem. We could become a target ourselves."

OOC: It's more of this,

Nation A: I hate Nation C.
Nation B: I hate Nation C too.
Nation A: Let's create a treaty that can divide Nation C among ourselves!
Nation B: Deal!

-later-
Nation C: You can't do that! Both of you are conducting unjust warfare against my nation!
Nation A&B: Oh, we are simply fulfilling our "legally binding treaty obligations" to one another, ain't that right chap?
*annexes*

Sounds familiar? This is the legalization of that type of immoral warfare.

[DACOROMANIA]

A new way for transnational invasions to be permitted. It's obvious.

-Pr: "Dear General, give me legal reasons to invade... err... expand beyond our borders."
-Gn: "Yes, Mr. President, understood."
-Sg: "General, we found it. It's about human rights abuses in every nation in the world."
-Gn: "Oh, not quite good. What about us?"
-Sg: "Err... that's really a problem. We could become a target ourselves."

OOC: It's more of this,

Nation A: I hate Nation C.
Nation B: I hate Nation C too.
Nation A: Let's create a treaty that can divide Nation C among ourselves!
Nation B: Deal!

-later-
Nation C: You can't do that! Both of you are conducting unjust warfare against my nation!
Nation A&B: Oh, we are simply fulfilling our "legally binding treaty obligations" to one another, ain't that right chap?
*annexes*

Sounds familiar? This is the legalization of that type of immoral warfare.

It sounds really familiar. It reminds me of 20th century history. Endless wars but NONE of human rights being respected.

[United Massachusetts]

You all missed the key word on the treaty clause. "Pre-existing"

[Youssath]

You all missed the key word on the treaty clause. "Pre-existing"

Clause 2a(iv) states: "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,"

And this is after Clause 2 and its subset:

Prohibits member-states from initiating transnational military action:
except for the purposes of:

Given by this interpretation, member-states are allowed to initiate transnational military action under the conditions of,

• The fulfillment of binding and pre-existing national obligations under treaty OR,
• The fulfillment of binding and pre-existing national obligations under international law OR,
• The exercise of rights specifically afforded to nations under extant (pre-existing) international law.

"This statement cannot be considered as a whole, Ambassador. You broke up the conditions and prerequisites into several pieces with your wanton use of the word "or", despite another telling you of the exact same thing a month ago. Even if you did change the word from 'extant' to 'pre-existing' (which does not solve the problem of the "or" conditions, mind you), the lack of definitions towards the 'exercise of rights specifically afforded to nations (including non-WA ones?) under pre-existing international law' does not show clarity as to what exercise of rights these (WA or non-WA?) nations are being assured of, and that by referencing on existing resolutions to support and substantiate this subset of a clause [Clause 2a(iv)] it creates a 'House of Cards' offence, along with possibly a 'Meta-Gaming' offence for forcing events (giving non-WA nations the exercise of rights) on non-member nations."

"Your singular statement against my entire argument only reinforces my belief that this resolution must be stopped, unfortunately."

[Stanisiti]

Enforcing this would be difficult, what is considered just and unjust is highly circumstantial and differs in opinion from person to person.

[Inderlanda3]

This proposal does not define the following
Civil war
call for allyship

[Wallenburg]

This proposal does not define the following
Civil war
call for allyship

You are correct. This is most likely because those terms never appear in the resolution.

[Snofjogur]

A new way for transnational invasions to be permitted. It's obvious.

-Pr: "Dear General, give me legal reasons to invade... err... expand beyond our borders."
-Gn: "Yes, Mr. President, understood."
-Sg: "General, we found it. It's about human rights abuses in every nation in the world."
-Gn: "Oh, not quite good. What about us?"
-Sg: "Err... that's really a problem. We could become a target ourselves."

OOC: It's more of this,

Nation A: I hate Nation C.
Nation B: I hate Nation C too.
Nation A: Let's create a treaty that can divide Nation C among ourselves!
Nation B: Deal!

-later-
Nation C: You can't do that! Both of you are conducting unjust warfare against my nation!
Nation A&B: Oh, we are simply fulfilling our "legally binding treaty obligations" to one another, ain't that right chap?
*annexes*

Sounds familiar? This is the legalization of that type of immoral warfare.

Pretty much. We can never stand by a resolution that legalises war and paves the way for corruption, immorality and abuse the way this resolution does.