[DEFEATED] Preventing Unjust Warfare

[American Pere Housh]

(Image)

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

"My nation is 100% opposed to this proposal. I call on my fellow WA ambassadors to oppose this."

Jonathan Delacroix
WA Ambassador and Civil Congress Representative for American Pere Housh

[Kranostav]

"My nation is 100% opposed to this proposal. I call on my fellow WA ambassadors to oppose this."

Jonathan Delacroix
WA Ambassador and Civil Congress Representative for American Pere Housh

Fwiw, its very unnecessary to quote the entire proposal and then say you are against.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

Against. I don't think that there will ever be a comprehensive legal definition of the "just war". You can specify principles of the just war, but don't hope to specify all the particular cases in which a war is justified. It's like with morality. You can specify the principles of morality, but you can't enumerate all moral actions or all the immoral ones. That's why all criminal codes are not construed like so "every action is illegal, except for this allowable ones", but like so "these are the illegal actions".

What I'm saying is that I would support legislation that would aim to prohibit certain most heinous cases of the unjust war, rather than a blanket ban on war with exception for what is defined to be the just war.

[Kenmoria]

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

(OOC: It all depends on how the clauses are broken up in one’s head. Youssath gave one way in which to make it allowable to invade mindlessly, and another could be by applying only ‘binding and pre-existing’ to ‘national obligations under treaty’, and have ‘national obligations under international law’ as a separate entity.)

[VW53Aland]

First of all, I would like to point out that VW53ALandians are very peaceful and pacifist people. So we do value "preventing unjust warfare". In fact, we do value preventing warfare ... period. So, after reading the resolution's title, VW53ALand would be in favour of this resolution.

However, we also think that violent or oppressive nations are not going to obey this resolution. It are the nations that are not willing to obey laws, or that define whatever their cause is as 'just', or that do not care about people's rights (in fact: other people's rights) that initiate war. In fact, this resolution is powerless, or useless, as it will only be obeyed by those who were obeying it already before the resolution existed. Therefore, the resolution does not change anything.

Besides that, who is to say what is just and what is unjust? And if the WA is the body that should decide that, shouldn't the resolution define 'just warfare' and 'unjust warfare'?

Further more, we think that it is short-sighted to assume that only nations engage in or initiate warfare.

3. Further prohibits non-state actors, excluding those salaried by a state and acting formally on its behalf, from initiating transnational military action in a World Assembly member-state.

Does this mean that, let's say, when a nation, composed of multiple ethnicities, oppresses a certain ethnic group that spreads over multiple nations, that that group cannot start a war with that oppressive regime? It is prohibited, even after Or would you not call that "warfare"? If so, shouldn't warfare have been defined in this resolution?

Even if one would find that these points were made in the resolution, we find them to vague or to broad.

And then there is point 2c that "[2] prohibits member-states from initiating transnational military action [c] where its costs, in human life, economic output, and political turmoil, far outweigh its expected returns". How will that be calculated? And does this also mean that if the "expected returns" far outweigh the "costs, in human life, economic output, and political turmoil" that it is not prohibited? Or is that even seen as 'just warfare'? And what do you define as "expected returns"? Expected by whom? And again, who is going to define which outweighs which?

As opposed of warfare we are, we do not think unjust warfare will be prevented by this (or in fact: any) resolution.
And if it could, and how much we would like to see a peaceful world without wars, we cannot support this resolution as it is.

[Kenmoria]

However, we also think that violent or oppressive nations are not going to obey this resolution. It are the nations that are not willing to obey laws, or that define whatever their cause is as 'just', or that do not care about people's rights (in fact: other people's rights) that initiate war. In fact, this resolution is powerless, or useless, as it will only be obeyed by those who were obeying it already before the resolution existed. Therefore, the resolution does not change anything.

“Ambassador, noncompliance is already dealt with by a past resolution, the Administrative Compliance Act. It would be pointless for this proposal to imposed additional penalties for this.”

[Liberimery]

The nation of Liberimery has a long and proud 200 year history of nonaggression and peacefully resolving our differences with our neighbors. While we have a military, it is for defense of ourself and for the protection of neutral aid to those in conflict zones. We do not seek war and make no judgement of those engaged in hostilities.

However, I can not stand before this assembly and support this resolution in good faith and preach to people’s of other nations to follow in Liberimery’s footsteps. We are a nation that was born in conflict with our colonial government for our right to make these determinations for ourselves. To this day, the lessons we learned have in those wars have proven critical to our national ethos.

Our democracy government is instituted in the understanding that a government can only exist by the grace of the will of the people it governs. A government that has lost that grace must step down. We recognize many people live under the rule of unconsented government power and lack a peaceful means to revoke power from a government they no longer see fit to wield such power. In these such incidents, we feel it is the right of the people to engage in rebellion and when met with threats of force, to declare war upon the very state itself.

It is therefor hypocritical of the people of The Free States of Liberimery to be asked to support a ban on Non-State actors from engaging in war and yet celebrate our own freedom that we so prize. Liberimerians have access to peaceful means of opposing unchecked government today because we went to war for the very right to have them. To vote in favor of this resolution to deny this right to other peoples is to betray my nation and my people to our core. Liberimery proudly votes nay for all people everywhere oppressed by their governments!

[United Massachusetts]

The nation of Liberimery has a long and proud 200 year history of nonaggression and peacefully resolving our differences with our neighbors. While we have a military, it is for defense of ourself and for the protection of neutral aid to those in conflict zones. We do not seek war and make no judgement of those engaged in hostilities.

However, I can not stand before this assembly and support this resolution in good faith and preach to people’s of other nations to follow in Liberimery’s footsteps. We are a nation that was born in conflict with our colonial government for our right to make these determinations for ourselves. To this day, the lessons we learned have in those wars have proven critical to our national ethos.

Our democracy government is instituted in the understanding that a government can only exist by the grace of the will of the people it governs. A government that has lost that grace must step down. We recognize many people live under the rule of unconsented government power and lack a peaceful means to revoke power from a government they no longer see fit to wield such power. In these such incidents, we feel it is the right of the people to engage in rebellion and when met with threats of force, to declare war upon the very state itself.

It is therefor hypocritical of the people of The Free States of Liberimery to be asked to support a ban on Non-State actors from engaging in war and yet celebrate our own freedom that we so prize. Liberimerians have access to peaceful means of opposing unchecked government today because we went to war for the very right to have them. To vote in favor of this resolution to deny this right to other peoples is to betray my nation and my people to our core. Liberimery proudly votes nay for all people everywhere oppressed by their governments!

This resolution only deals with transnational action. Civil wars and revolts are still permitted

[Araraukar]

"We cannot!" he looked outraged, "Velstrania only goes on crusades against tyrannical countries. We define tyranny as 'restricting the ability of the population to enjoy the right of the will. The right of the will is very important, you must know this. Does your nation restrict it?"

“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.”

"Our dictator is quite keen on human rights, actually, and I daresay Araraukarians enjoy a few more of them than the minimum dictated by the WA. The saying "your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins" goes for anyone claiming that their particular solution is more right than someone else's. Our dictatorship began after a population-wide election was held, in which the population turned over the running of the nation to those for whom it is a job and a calling. They prefer living their lives peacefully, rather than worrying about which of the populistic assholes¹ is the least likely to go back on everything they promised after getting into power, every few years. The so-called "tyranny" has been a blessing to our nation, not a curse."

OOC ¹note: She's referring to political candidates in general, not any person specifically.

Also OOC: Voted for, for reasons already gone through earlier in the thread.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

“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.”

"Our dictator is quite keen on human rights, actually, and I daresay Araraukarians enjoy a few more of them than the minimum dictated by the WA. The saying "your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins" goes for anyone claiming that their particular solution is more right than someone else's. Our dictatorship began after a population-wide election was held, in which the population turned over the running of the nation to those for whom it is a job and a calling. They prefer living their lives peacefully, rather than worrying about which of the populistic assholes¹ is the least likely to go back on everything they promised after getting into power, every few years. The so-called "tyranny" has been a blessing to our nation, not a curse."

OOC ¹note: She's referring to political candidates in general, not any person specifically.

Also OOC: Voted for, for reasons already gone through earlier in the thread.

"Velstrania is ruled directly by God," he informed the other representative, "Who has transferred his being on Earth into the form of the Mazhrit, our holy ruler. He ensures we all enjoy the right of the will, and it is our duty to spread this right to the rest of the less blessed nations of the world."

[Araraukar]

"Velstrania is ruled directly by God," he informed the other representative, "Who has transferred his being on Earth into the form of the Mazhrit, our holy ruler. He ensures we all enjoy the right of the will, and it is our duty to spread this right to the rest of the less blessed nations of the world."

"So a religious nutcase of a tyrant. Exactly how are you better than the tyrants you claim to fight?"

[Kaiserholt]

The Most Serene Republic has voted against the current General Assembly issue, Preventing Unjust Warfare, because we believe it is unnecessary on many counts. Labeling wars to be 'Just' or 'Unjust' lies outside Kaiserholt's frame of reference, said terms being of a moralistic viewpoint foreign to our philosophy. By the time war is declared, spreading peace and goodwill has already been shelved for the time being...best for all parties to take up the conversation in a year or so, or when one side wins.

As long as the Most Serene Republic is peaceful, the relative level of conflict in other nations is of their own concern. Section 2 alone is riddled with loopholes that make the whole bill unnecessary. Although our arms industry and lawyers would love to exploit this Section to the point where we can make a defending nation seem the aggressor in public opinion and legal fact before the transnational community, even we have a sense of probity.

So we vote Nay on this proposal.

[Kenmoria]

"Our dictator is quite keen on human rights, actually, and I daresay Araraukarians enjoy a few more of them than the minimum dictated by the WA. The saying "your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins" goes for anyone claiming that their particular solution is more right than someone else's. Our dictatorship began after a population-wide election was held, in which the population turned over the running of the nation to those for whom it is a job and a calling. They prefer living their lives peacefully, rather than worrying about which of the populistic assholes¹ is the least likely to go back on everything they promised after getting into power, every few years. The so-called "tyranny" has been a blessing to our nation, not a curse."

OOC ¹note: She's referring to political candidates in general, not any person specifically.

Also OOC: Voted for, for reasons already gone through earlier in the thread.

"Velstrania is ruled directly by God," he informed the other representative, "Who has transferred his being on Earth into the form of the Mazhrit, our holy ruler. He ensures we all enjoy the right of the will, and it is our duty to spread this right to the rest of the less blessed nations of the world."

“I’m sorry,” begins Ambassador Lewitt, “But I’m afraid I can’t see an exception for wars of unequal blessedness in the proposal text. Maybe I’m just not seeing it, but there doesn’t actually appear to be anything in the legislation that is even slightly pertinent to what you are saying at all. With that in mind, please refer to the Administrative Compliance Act.”

[VW53Aland]

As long as the Most Serene Republic is peaceful, the relative level of conflict in other nations is of their own concern.

Then what is Kaiserholt doing in the WA?! Why is it a WA-member if it only looks after itself and does not care about other nations? The WA isn't about one particular nation (any particular nation), but about "mutual cooperation between members with the objective of creating a better world through legislation."

[Kaiserholt]

As long as the Most Serene Republic is peaceful, the relative level of conflict in other nations is of their own concern.

Then what is Kaiserholt doing in the WA?! Why is it a WA-member if it only looks after itself and does not care about other nations? The WA isn't about one particular nation (any particular nation), but about "mutual cooperation between members with the objective of creating a better world through legislation."

Good thing you avoided citing anything above or below that single sentence to add needed context, otherwise one would answer your question before it is asked. Conflict is often times more complex than what the international community can resolve. Slashing military budgets didn’t forestall World War II, it merely taught nations how to be sneakier. Papering over the basis of conflict with a loophole-ridden document doesn’t solve the issue you think that it is solving. Slashing military spending only means that the money will find its way into pockets outside of the region in conflict, covered up as buying foreign ‘farming equipment’ or the sort.

When two sides want to fight, they’ll find ways. Which is why the General Assembly should focus on negotiation long before conflict begins.

[Qualvista]

The Royal World Estate votes in favour of the resolution. We are pacifist by nature and this resolution attempts to limit the circumstances for armed conflict, which we ethically approve.

OOC: I imagine St. Augustine would probably like this resolution!

[Kenmoria]

Then what is Kaiserholt doing in the WA?! Why is it a WA-member if it only looks after itself and does not care about other nations? The WA isn't about one particular nation (any particular nation), but about "mutual cooperation between members with the objective of creating a better world through legislation."

Good thing you avoided citing anything above or below that single sentence to add needed context, otherwise one would answer your question before it is asked. Conflict is often times more complex than what the international community can resolve. Slashing military budgets didn’t forestall World War II, it merely taught nations how to be sneakier. Papering over the basis of conflict with a loophole-ridden document doesn’t solve the issue you think that it is solving. Slashing military spending only means that the money will find its way into pockets outside of the region in conflict, covered up as buying foreign ‘farming equipment’ or the sort.

When two sides want to fight, they’ll find ways. Which is why the General Assembly should focus on negotiation long before conflict begins.

(OOC: In defence of UM, the proposal does ban conflict except for when all feasible diplomatic avenues, including negation, have been exhausted.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: The most common against argument seems to be that "unjust" is just a point of view (which, let's be fair, it is), but whether that's because people just don't want the reasons for going to war restricted in any way or just don't agree with the justifications given, isn't quite as clear.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Out of interest, UM, are you going to be redrafting this proposal in the likely event that it fails at vote? Quite a lot of the criticisms here would be easily addressed, and the idea seems like a good match for the World Assembly generally.)

[Auralia]

I do hope so. I would recommend the following synthesis of the current proposal with my own draft, which UM is free to use if I am credited as a co-author.

UM, we can discuss this further over TG if you'd like.

Committed to the pursuit of international peace and security among all World Assembly member states,

Affirming the fundamental truth that not all armed conflict is just and that states are responsible to refrain from unjust warfare,

Seeking to prohibit such crimes against peace,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the "initiation of transnational armed conflict" as the act of breaching an existing formal or informal peace with a target state, including but not limited to:
   
   1. a declaration of war against the target state,
   2. an invasion of territory controlled by the target state, or
   3. an attack against the armed forces of the target state;
2. Recognizes as a crime against peace any initiation of transnational armed conflict by a member state that:
   
   1. is not taken for the primary purpose of:
      
      1. individual or collective self-defense by the initiating state against the target state or against a non-state actor operating in the target state, including preemptive action in response to substantial evidence of imminent attack or severe threats to national security,
      2. halting widespread and systematic abuses of fundamental human rights committed by the target state or a non-state actor operating in the target state, where there is substantial evidence that such abuses are presently occurring or will imminently occur,
      3. the exercise of a right guaranteed by international law or a treaty to which the initiating state and the target state are parties, or
      4. other purposes as may be authorized by the World Assembly from time to time,
   2. violates the law of the initiating state, international law, or a treaty to which the initiating state is a party,
   3. has no reasonable prospect of achieving its defined objectives,
   4. is taken prior to exhausting all alternatives to conflict that are reasonable under the circumstances, or
   5. has expected benefits that are grossly disproportionately smaller than the expected harms,
   as well as attempting to, conspiring to, actively participating in, or inciting others to engage in such transnational initiation of armed conflict;
   
   
3. Further recognizes any initiation of transnational armed conflict by a non-state actor as a crime against peace, as well as attempting to, conspiring to, actively participating in, or inciting others to engage in such transnational initiation of armed conflict;
   
   
4. Emphasizes that any initiation of transnational armed conflict undertaken for the primary purpose of territorial acquisition or subjugation of foreign populations constitutes a crime against peace;
   
   
5. Prohibits member states from committing crimes against peace;
   
   
6. Requires member states to duly prosecute government officials and other individuals within their territorial jurisdiction who bear responsibility for a state or a non-state actor committing crimes against peace;
   
   
7. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as recognizing the following as crimes against peace, without prejudice to the right of the World Assembly to do so in future:
   
   1. the initiation of purely domestic armed conflict, or
   2. the initiation of transnational armed conflict against a violent non-state actor with the consent of the state where the conflict occurs.

Some comments:

(1) I've tried to address TNP's concerns -- see my comment to Araraukar below.

(2) I've tried to tighten the definition of military action. I think "breaching a peace" makes more sense than "disturbing a peace" in this context. I also think the definition should cover attacks against military forces that are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the target member states, such as an attack on a foreign military base.

(3) At least one existing GA resolution (the one on statutory limitations) introduces the concept of a "crime against peace", so I think we should use it here.

[Araraukar]

I do hope so. I would recommend the following synthesis of the current proposal with my own draft, which UM is free to use if I am credited as a co-author.

OOC: So you want to make it less likely to pass, then? Also, your version doesn't fix the issue, which is the spurious justifications of what makes a war "just", which has been the main complaint of people voting against.

[Auralia]

OOC: So you want to make it less likely to pass, then?

I really don't care about people who vote against proposals because they don't like the author.

Also, your version doesn't fix the issue, which is the spurious justifications of what makes a war "just", which has been the main complaint of people voting against.

People who are objecting on those grounds probably will not vote for any version of this proposal.

My primary concerns are TNP's objections:

The proposal, while well meaning, is hampered by various holes and unachievable standards. Namely, Clause 2.1.1 relies on 'undeniable and concrete evidence' which is not easily obtainable if possible at all, especially in situations where bad faith and third party actors are excepted to be involved but proof is not totally present. Additionally, clause 2.1.3 appears to be miswritten as it never fully clarifies that nondomestic forces engaging the local nonstate actor would be required to satisfy this however domestic forces engaging on a local nonstate actor would not need to satisfy this requirement as it would not be transnational. Furthermore, clause 2.3 becomes problematic as a nation's predictions may not reflect reality and the results of a transnational conflict can vary greatly between predicted result and actual result, especially in scenarios where a multitude of factors for this decision are unknown or only generally specified.

(1) Replace this standard with "substantial evidence".

(2) Humanitarian interventions are best dealt with in a different proposal. Just clarify that this proposal doesn't apply to this case.

(3) The proportionality criteria should apply to reasonably anticipated outcomes, not actual outcomes.

[Araraukar]

I really don't care about people who vote against proposals because they don't like the author.

OOC: So write it as your own proposal then?

[Auralia]

I really don't care about people who vote against proposals because they don't like the author.

OOC: So write it as your own proposal then?

I think that's up to UM, actually, and not you.

[United Massachusetts]

(OOC: Out of interest, UM, are you going to be redrafting this proposal in the likely event that it fails at vote? Quite a lot of the criticisms here would be easily addressed, and the idea seems like a good match for the World Assembly generally.)

I do intend to redraft, with Auralian input.