[PASSED] Wartime Healthcare Protections

[Maowi]

OOC: I'm tired now so hopefully my brain is working but I think that would be permitted under the current draft as long as they 'take them under their wing' without using violence?

OOC: Yeah, but your arguments made in the thread don't quite match the arguments made in the proposal. You keep saying protecting people going to and fro at the medical center is one of the aims of the proposal. Why? Why does that matter in the least if all you need to do to get medical attention, if you're a wounded soldier and the enemy is between you and the medical center, is to surrender and be taken as POV?

And yes I'm aware that wounded soldiers rarely do that unless they're, like, dying, which is kinda the point.

OOC: I don't think anything in the text right now prevents military forces from blocking a wounded soldier from accessing medical help subject to their surrendering, as long as they can do so non-violently. Wounded soldiers wouldn't completely be given a free pass. (Also, when you say POV are you saying prisoner of war??)

Active war zones are rarely as organized as either side would like, especially when there is an offensive (meaning, the frontline may be shifting rapidly) going on. Not bombing a military hospital that's only trying to keep wounded soldiers alive? Great idea! Not shooting wounded soldiers only trying to get medical attention? Great idea! Requiring mind-reading technology for a group of armed soldiers coming across a group of armed enemy soldiers to know they're actually trying to get a wounded teammate to the medical help, rather than trying to sneak around for a surprise attack from behind? Not a good idea.

So basically clause 4 would need the addition of "unarmed" to the bits how to make sure you're not targeting a medical help seekers, but I know that's likely considered an unreasonable request in an active warzone. Basically, how do you tell an active soldier and noncombatant apart, if they're both wearing the same kit and carrying the same weapons?

Attempting to solve this problem was the point of requiring the bearing of identifying symbols in order to qualify for protection. I realise it may be unrealistic in many situations but I can't think of a way of being less exclusive while, as you say, not requiring mind-reading technology.

As for reducing length, you use helluva lot of unnecessary repetition that you can cut easily.

Case in point, clause 4:

4. Member nations’ military forces may not:

a. use violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
b. 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.
c. attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.

Rewritten:

4. Member nations’ military forces may not:

a. use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel or patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
b. attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.

I will change that. I was just being paranoid about loopholes with using 'or', which always gets me in a muddle for some reason, but things like that will definitely help in terms of length.

Also, I know I gripe about committees, but this is a different kind of gripe: the ban to bomb medical centers shouldn't be a mere guideline in something the committee does, nor should you use that committee to give permissions for artillery fire/bombing runs.

I wanted to avoid using two different committees in the same proposal, but maybe that's nevessary here? When I reach a computer I'll look into pre-ed committees which I could use.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the first point, though. The committee is supposed to help enforce the ban on bombing medical facilities, but to do so differently depending on the situation.

Thanks for all the feedback, anyway, it's very helpful to be able to run through these things with someone.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Rewrittal attempt, only Maowi or myself can use. I tried to keep the gist of the whole business while cutting down on unnecessary fluff:

Wartime Healthcare Protections

Global Disarmament
Mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging previously passed basic protections for medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Believing that these protections are not comprehensive enough;

Appalled by the thought of attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are safeguarded against unnecessary violence even during a war;

Approving of similar methods already protecting civilians;

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution

1. a non-civilian as someone in the employment of a nation's military forces,
2. a patient as a non-civilian person suffering from a medical ailment requiring the attention of medical professionals,
3. medical personnel as those who provide medical transportation or treatment, who are either unarmed or bear light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care,
4. a medical facility as a site used for non-civilian medical treatment, triage or transport and the associated infrastructure, which bears clearly visible markings indicating its status as such,
5. destructive military action as a damaging, often low-accuracy area of effect attack, with potential to cause fatalities;

2. Requires member nations to document the locations of all medical facilities in areas controlled by them, and mark such areas clearly so that they can be identified from the air as well as the ground,

3. Bans member nations' military forces from using destructive military actions if there is a high risk for the attack to damage or destroy a medical facility,

4. Further makes it a war crime to intentionally target a medical facility for a destructive military action,

5. Encourages member nations to evacuate medical facilities in areas under their control that are at a reasonable risk of being unintentionally targeted by destructive military actions,

6. Clarifies that a medical facility that is also used for military actions of war, or is maintained despite risks as an attempt of using human shields to protect a strategic military target, does not fall under the protections laid out in this resolution.

[Maowi]

OOC: Wow, thanks. I'm on a train at the moment so I'll wait til I get home to have a look through.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm on a train at the moment

OOC: Have a safe trip!

[Maowi]

OOC: I was planning on getting to this now but I'm shattered so it's not happening In any case, I'll delay submission seeing as there could be significant changes to the draft.
One question though (to Ara). You left in the definitions for patients and personnel but you then didn't use them. Did you intentionally omit any sort of protection for those in need of medical attention and if so, why??

[Araraukar]

OOC: You left in the definitions for patients and personnel but you then didn't use them.

OOC: Whoops. I originally intended to just cut repetition, but then went for a proper rewrite, and apparently forgot to fix all the definitions to fit.

Definition d. should read "a medical facility as a site used for non-civilian patient medical treatment, triage or transport by medical personnel, and the associated infrastructure, which bears clearly visible markings indicating its status as such," as it was meant to incorporate definitions a., b. and c. into one. Thus protecting medical facilities as defined, should be enough to cover everything necessary.

Did you intentionally omit any sort of protection for those in need of medical attention and if so, why??

Well, GA #121 protects basically first aid needs already, yes? Wasn't the whole point you started writing this that you didn't think that it covered continued treatment facilities for military peeps? Or am I mistaking this draft for something else? I needed to be asleep 4 hours ago, so thinking is a bit fuzzy and I need to head to bed right now. Maybe we'll both think clearer tomorrow.

[Maowi]

OOC: You left in the definitions for patients and personnel but you then didn't use them.

OOC: Whoops. I originally intended to just cut repetition, but then went for a proper rewrite, and apparently forgot to fix all the definitions to fit.

Definition d. should read "a medical facility as a site used for non-civilian patient medical treatment, triage or transport by medical personnel, and the associated infrastructure, which bears clearly visible markings indicating its status as such," as it was meant to incorporate definitions a., b. and c. into one. Thus protecting medical facilities as defined, should be enough to cover everything necessary.

OOC: Ah, I see now. Thanks.

Did you intentionally omit any sort of protection for those in need of medical attention and if so, why??

Well, GA #121 protects basically first aid needs already, yes? Wasn't the whole point you started writing this that you didn't think that it covered continued treatment facilities for military peeps? Or am I mistaking this draft for something else? I needed to be asleep 4 hours ago, so thinking is a bit fuzzy and I need to head to bed right now. Maybe we'll both think clearer tomorrow.

The reason you just mentioned is only one part of the shortcomings of GAR 121. I believe it could legally be interpreted to only protect the physical building (" Defines a medical facility as a structure whose primary function ..."), allowing member nations to easily evade the (probable?) intended spirit of the resolution - which is why I wish to provide additional protections for the actual people in this proposal.

Here's my new draft based on the rewrite you gave below. Changes made from your version:
-made a couple of minor stylistic changes to the preamble (just personal preference)
-removed 'person' from 1.b., given that a non-civilian is defined as a noun in 1.a.
-removed the description of patients as non-civilian in 1.d. seeing as that's already specified in the definition of 'patient'
-removed 'unintentionally' from 5: even in cases of non-compliance, or of intentional targeting by non-member nations, I would think it preferable to attempt to ensure the safety of the occupants of a medical facility
-added what is now clause 6 (for reasons stated above)

Wartime Healthcare Protections

Global Disarmament | Mild| Proposed by Maowi

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging previously passed basic protections for medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Believing that these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive;

Appalled by the thought of attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are safeguarded against unnecessary violence even during a war;

Approving of similar measures already protecting civilians;

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. a non-civilian as someone in the employment of a nation's military forces,
2. a patient as a non-civilian suffering from a medical ailment requiring the attention of medical professionals,
3. medical personnel as those who provide medical transportation or treatment, who are either unarmed or bear light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care,
4. a medical facility as a site used for medical treatment, triage or transport of patients by medical personnel, and the associated infrastructure, which bears clearly visible markings indicating its status as such,
5. destructive military action as a damaging, often low-accuracy area of effect attack, with potential to cause fatalities;

2. Requires member nations to document the locations of all medical facilities in areas controlled by them, and mark such areas clearly so that they can be identified from the air as well as the ground;

3. Bans member nations' military forces from using destructive military actions if there is a high risk for the attack to damage or destroy a medical facility;

4. Further makes it a war crime to intentionally target a medical facility for a destructive military action;

5. Encourages member nations to evacuate medical facilities in areas under their control that are at a reasonable risk of being targeted by destructive military actions;

6. Forbids member nations' military forces from:

1. preventing patients from accessing a medical facility,
2. preventing medical personnel from transporting a patient to a medical facility,
3. using violence against non-civilian medical personnel providing medical treatment or triage in a medical facility, or against patients being provided with medical treatment in a medical facility;

7. Clarifies that a medical facility that is also used for military actions of war, or is maintained despite risks as an attempt of using human shields to protect a strategic military target, does not fall under the protections laid out in this resolution.

Co-authored by Araraukar.

If you're ok with using this as a sort of base for the proposal, I'll stick it in the OP.

[Araraukar]

If you're ok with using this as a sort of base for the proposal, I'll stick it in the OP.

OOC: Put it in. We can fiddle with the specifics further later.

[Maowi]

If you're ok with using this as a sort of base for the proposal, I'll stick it in the OP.

OOC: Put it in. We can fiddle with the specifics further later.

OOC: Done.

[Youssath]

Wartime Healthcare Protections

Global Disarmament | Mild| Proposed by Maowi

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging previously passed basic protections for medical facilities inside areas of conflict;

Believing that these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive;

Appalled by the thought of attacking of people in need of or providing medical care;

Seeking to ensure that such people are safeguarded against unnecessary violence even during a war;

Approving of similar measures already protecting civilians;

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. a non-civilian as someone in the employment of a nation's military forces,
2. a patient as a non-civilian suffering from a medical ailment requiring the attention of medical professionals,
3. medical personnel as those who provide medical transportation or treatment, who are either unarmed or bear light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care,
4. a medical facility as a site used for medical treatment, triage or transport of patients by medical personnel, and the associated infrastructure, which bears clearly visible markings indicating its status as such,
5. destructive military action as a damaging, often low-accuracy area of effect attack, with potential to cause fatalities;

2. Requires member nations to document the locations of all medical facilities in areas controlled by them, and mark such areas clearly so that they can be identified from the air as well as the ground;

3. Bans member nations' military forces from using destructive military actions if there is a high risk for the attack to damage or destroy a medical facility;

4. Further makes it a war crime to intentionally target a medical facility for a destructive military action;

5. Encourages member nations to evacuate medical facilities in areas under their control that are at a reasonable risk of being targeted by destructive military actions;

6. Forbids member nations' military forces from:

1. preventing patients from accessing a medical facility,
2. preventing medical personnel from transporting a patient to a medical facility,
3. using violence against non-civilian medical personnel providing medical treatment or triage in a medical facility, or against patients being provided with medical treatment in a medical facility;

7. Clarifies that a medical facility that is also used for military actions of war, or is maintained despite risks as an attempt of using human shields to protect a strategic military target, does not fall under the protections laid out in this resolution.

Co-authored by Araraukar.

The Youssathian Ambassador raises his hand, requesting that his delegation team each receive a copy of the resolution draft at hand. As he waits for more papers, he begins to read the resolution in front of him. By the time a WA staff member handed him the set of papers as requested, the ambassador silently hissed against the intern. Apparently, the resolution draft has shocked the ambassador quite badly.

After a few rounds of speeches from the other WA ambassadors, the Youssathian ambassador makes the following address to the GA council:

While The Republic of Youssath has always been an advocator for the rights and protections of military personnel during wartime, never has this been truer when it comes to medical personnel. Unfortunately, this resolution draft at hand is extremely upsetting towards my administration as it fails to achieve what it hopes at the end of the day, even though its intentions are noble at best.

Firstly, Youssath opposes the preamble and preliminary findings made by The Holy Bouncy Slothland of Maowi and The Grand Nation of Araraukar. Starting from the "thought (that) attacking of people in need of or providing medical care" is real and that as a result, "such people (must be) safeguarded against unnecessary violence even during a war" and that "these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive" of our time is simply misleading at best. GAR #6 assures the safety and protection of medical wartime personnel through reasonable clauses such as Clause 8, which expressly states that "any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel (can) request to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection", and that it is mandated by Clause 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the resolution which guarantees the safety and protection of medical personnel such that any inspections do not put them in danger and to allow medical wartime personnel to provide official documentation for national vessels while ensuring that they will not be attacked and that the only real consequence is the seizure of any non-humanitarian cargoes found within these vessels. Hence, to say that "these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive" is incorrect, to say the least, and we hope that the Maowese and Araraukarian ambassadors can make the following amendments to their preliminary findings.

Secondly, Youssath is against the definitions and interpretations of the "Wartime Healthcare Protections" resolution. With these numerous concerns troubling at best, the passing of such a resolution can have dire consequences such as:

1. The use of the term "non-civilian" to define all military personnel employed in the armed forces is incorrect, as there should be a better term to define military personnel rather than just giving a negative terminology on the word "civilian". For example, civilian specialists employed by the government in defence research or private military contractors are officially not part of the armed forces' employment, but they are critical in the war effort directly or indirectly. If they are used to commit crimes against humanity by attacking medical installations, this resolution does not effectively provide enough interpretations and coverage for these types of scenarios.
2. Furthermore, the definition of "destructive military action" is way too specific in nature, and that it does not define concentrated attack and fire on key military installations such as naval bases or airports, which often have a small medical office presiding within these institutions to attend towards non-emergency treatment. Thus, military action should be defined as unwarranted or unnecessary attacks on humanitarian institutions, regardless of the type of attack and its accuracy used against said nation.

Thirdly, Youssath is extremely concerned over Clause 2 of the "Wartime Healthcare Protections" resolution, which mandates that all "member nations (must) document the locations of all medical facilities in areas controlled by them". This sets a dangerous situation for all WA member nations here, as it violates national security and intelligence gathering by warranting for the disclosure of all medical locations within the nation. While the rest of the resolution does protect these medical installations from being attacked, often at times there are also key military installations in close proximity to the medical hub (so that emergencies can be treated quickly), making it not only difficult to attack without violating this resolution but it gives away key military strongholds and can result in mass casualties in a war should such documentation fall in the wrong hands.

Lastly, Youssath states that Clause 7 of this resolution is in similarity towards GAR #121 in its interpretation towards the revoking of such protections if a medical facility is found to conducting operations than what it is intended to do. Clause 7 states that any medical installations that conduct "military actions of war" or is maintained for similar purposes will not be covered in this resolution. Similarly, Clause 3 of GAR #121 also states that any attempts to produce or stockpile non-medical supplies or is used for camouflage that can be deemed as "military actions of war" will not be covered under the same protections. These clauses are similar and as such, there is no need to include Clause 7 if it has already been defined clearly within international law.

While my administration can support greater protections for medical personnel and their operations, this resolution, unfortunately, only provides ambiguity towards the topic at hand and can be exploited if interpreted wrongly. Hopefully, the ambassadors of this august council can come to their senses and realize the faults of this resolution.

OOC: Try to make amendments towards the points I have stated above. The resolution is clear, yes, but its interpretations or lack thereof leaves room for other interpretations such as those I have mentioned above. Also, there is no need for a Clause 7 since GAR #121 has covered that well.

If you guys need any further feedback on this issue, please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to respond!

[Maowi]

Firstly, Youssath opposes the preamble and preliminary findings made by The Holy Bouncy Slothland of Maowi and The Grand Nation of Araraukar. Starting from the "thought (that) attacking of people in need of or providing medical care" is real and that as a result, "such people (must be) safeguarded against unnecessary violence even during a war" and that "these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive" of our time is simply misleading at best. GAR #6 assures the safety and protection of medical wartime personnel through reasonable clauses such as Clause 8, which expressly states that "any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel (can) request to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection", and that it is mandated by Clause 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the resolution which guarantees the safety and protection of medical personnel such that any inspections do not put them in danger and to allow medical wartime personnel to provide official documentation for national vessels while ensuring that they will not be attacked and that the only real consequence is the seizure of any non-humanitarian cargoes found within these vessels. Hence, to say that "these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive" is incorrect, to say the least, and we hope that the Maowese and Araraukarian ambassadors can make the following amendments to their preliminary findings.

'With all due respect, ambassador, this complaint is both trivial and unfounded: a proposal's preambulatory clauses have no bearing whatsoever on its legislative substance, and in any case, the provisions outlined in GAR 6 target a rather specific situation. This proposal aims not only to protect medical personnel from harm in their travels, but also to guarantee personnel and patients access to medical facilities and to ensure that membernations do not target medical facilities in an attemptto further their war efforts. I therefore find it perfectly legitimate to claim that the area upon which we wish to legislate is not sufficiently addressed by extant international law.'

Secondly, Youssath is against the definitions and interpretations of the "Wartime Healthcare Protections" resolution. With these numerous concerns troubling at best, the passing of such a resolution can have dire consequences such as:

1. The use of the term "non-civilian" to define all military personnel employed in the armed forces is incorrect, as there should be a better term to define military personnel rather than just giving a negative terminology on the word "civilian". For example, civilian specialists employed by the government in defence research or private military contractors are officially not part of the armed forces' employment, but they are critical in the war effort directly or indirectly. If they are used to commit crimes against humanity by attacking medical installations, this resolution does not effectively provide enough interpretations and coverage for these types of scenarios.

OOC: I'll answer this OOC-ly as I have actually been thinking about this one a fair bit recently. The thing about this definition is that civilians are already protected under GAR 317, but said resolution does not provide a definition for civilian. I want this proposal to protect all patients and medical personnel who are not already protected by GAR 317, i.e. who are not considered civilian. The way I see it, if my definition of non-civilian errs on the side of being too inclusive, as it may be now, everyone would be protected as this proposal would protect this perhaps too large group of people, and the rest are covered by GAR 317. If this proposal is not inclusive enough, we risk ending up with people who are classed neither as civilian, nor as non-civilian, and who are therefore not protected. I think the lack of a definition for civilian in GAR 317 means that I can be a little over-inclusive in my definition here without questions of illegality due to contradiction. Those are my thoughts on the matter, and they may be completely wrong.

Furthermore, the definition of "destructive military action" is way too specific in nature, and that it does not define concentrated attack and fire on key military installations such as naval bases or airports, which often have a small medical office presiding within these institutions to attend towards non-emergency treatment. Thus, military action should be defined as unwarranted or unnecessary attacks on humanitarian institutions, regardless of the type of attack and its accuracy used against said nation.

'I'm not sure I quite understand your point, ambassador. Are you advocating that military installations be protected from attack? How in the multiverse do you expect member nations to advance in war at all? As long as all efforts to minimise the risk of damaging a medical facility are made, I do not believe that what you appear to be arguing for is valid. And I don't know where your gripe about "the type of attack and its accuracy" is coming from. Destructive military action is defined as damaging - pretty genetic, no? - and with the potential to cause fatalities - also doesn't seem to be particularly specific. The reference to such attacks as having an "often low-accuracy area of effect" is merely a guideline, per the use of "often".

Thirdly, Youssath is extremely concerned over Clause 2 of the "Wartime Healthcare Protections" resolution, which mandates that all "member nations (must) document the locations of all medical facilities in areas controlled by them". This sets a dangerous situation for all WA member nations here, as it violates national security and intelligence gathering by warranting for the disclosure of all medical locations within the nation. While the rest of the resolution does protect these medical installations from being attacked, often at times there are also key military installations in close proximity to the medical hub (so that emergencies can be treated quickly), making it not only difficult to attack without violating this resolution but it gives away key military strongholds and can result in mass casualties in a war should such documentation fall in the wrong hands.

'I will note that there is no requirement to make such documentation publicly known and that member nations would of course be perfectly entitled to take every precaution to protect this information. However, I do agree that this clause may need some reworking. Indeed, the very fact that this information is not to be shared makes me on second thought question the necessity of the existence of such documentation when it could, as ypu say, fall into the wrong hands. As long as medical facilities are clearly identifiable from the ground and from the air I believe the purposes of this proposal would be fulfilled and, subject to objections from the Araraukian delegation, I'd gladly remove the requirement to document the location of medical facilities.

Lastly, Youssath states that Clause 7 of this resolution is in similarity towards GAR #121 in its interpretation towards the revoking of such protections if a medical facility is found to conducting operations than what it is intended to do. Clause 7 states that any medical installations that conduct "military actions of war" or is maintained for similar purposes will not be covered in this resolution. Similarly, Clause 3 of GAR #121 also states that any attempts to produce or stockpile non-medical supplies or is used for camouflage that can be deemed as "military actions of war" will not be covered under the same protections. These clauses are similar and as such, there is no need to include Clause 7 if it has already been defined clearly within international law.

'The exceptions to GAR 121 are ... uh ... exceptions to GAR 121, ambassador. They revoke the protections granted in that resolution. If I wish to remove the protections granted by this proposal in specific situations - as I do - I must do so in the text of this proposal. Moreover, I do not wish to make exceptions subject to the same conditions as those made in GAR 121, which, as pointed out in our draft repeal of that resolution (OOC: which I won't link here because I am on my phone and that's not happening but the link is in the OP) are far too broad.

While my administration can support greater protections for medical personnel and their operations, this resolution, unfortunately, only provides ambiguity towards the topic at hand and can be exploited if interpreted wrongly. Hopefully, the ambassadors of this august council can come to their senses and realize the faults of this resolution.

'I hope my responses have addressed your concerns and please do speak up if you have anything more you wish to discuss.'

OOC: If you guys need any further feedback on this issue, please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to respond!

OOC: Thanks for taking the time to give feedback

[Youssath]

Firstly, Youssath opposes the preamble and preliminary findings made by The Holy Bouncy Slothland of Maowi and The Grand Nation of Araraukar. Starting from the "thought (that) attacking of people in need of or providing medical care" is real and that as a result, "such people (must be) safeguarded against unnecessary violence even during a war" and that "these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive" of our time is simply misleading at best. GAR #6 assures the safety and protection of medical wartime personnel through reasonable clauses such as Clause 8, which expressly states that "any national vessel within hailing distance of a humanitarian vessel (can) request to transmit their cargo manifest and prepare for boarding and inspection", and that it is mandated by Clause 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the resolution which guarantees the safety and protection of medical personnel such that any inspections do not put them in danger and to allow medical wartime personnel to provide official documentation for national vessels while ensuring that they will not be attacked and that the only real consequence is the seizure of any non-humanitarian cargoes found within these vessels. Hence, to say that "these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive" is incorrect, to say the least, and we hope that the Maowese and Araraukarian ambassadors can make the following amendments to their preliminary findings.

'With all due respect, ambassador, this complaint is both trivial and unfounded: a proposal's preambulatory clauses have no bearing whatsoever on its legislative substance, and in any case, the provisions outlined in GAR 6 target a rather specific situation. This proposal aims not only to protect medical personnel from harm in their travels, but also to guarantee personnel and patients access to medical facilities and to ensure that membernations do not target medical facilities in an attemptto further their war efforts. I therefore find it perfectly legitimate to claim that the area upon which we wish to legislate is not sufficiently addressed by extant international law.'

Secondly, Youssath is against the definitions and interpretations of the "Wartime Healthcare Protections" resolution. With these numerous concerns troubling at best, the passing of such a resolution can have dire consequences such as:

1. The use of the term "non-civilian" to define all military personnel employed in the armed forces is incorrect, as there should be a better term to define military personnel rather than just giving a negative terminology on the word "civilian". For example, civilian specialists employed by the government in defence research or private military contractors are officially not part of the armed forces' employment, but they are critical in the war effort directly or indirectly. If they are used to commit crimes against humanity by attacking medical installations, this resolution does not effectively provide enough interpretations and coverage for these types of scenarios.

OOC: I'll answer this OOC-ly as I have actually been thinking about this one a fair bit recently. The thing about this definition is that civilians are already protected under GAR 317, but said resolution does not provide a definition for civilian. I want this proposal to protect all patients and medical personnel who are not already protected by GAR 317, i.e. who are not considered civilian. The way I see it, if my definition of non-civilian errs on the side of being too inclusive, as it may be now, everyone would be protected as this proposal would protect this perhaps too large group of people, and the rest are covered by GAR 317. If this proposal is not inclusive enough, we risk ending up with people who are classed neither as civilian, nor as non-civilian, and who are therefore not protected. I think the lack of a definition for civilian in GAR 317 means that I can be a little over-inclusive in my definition here without questions of illegality due to contradiction. Those are my thoughts on the matter, and they may be completely wrong.

Furthermore, the definition of "destructive military action" is way too specific in nature, and that it does not define concentrated attack and fire on key military installations such as naval bases or airports, which often have a small medical office presiding within these institutions to attend towards non-emergency treatment. Thus, military action should be defined as unwarranted or unnecessary attacks on humanitarian institutions, regardless of the type of attack and its accuracy used against said nation.

'I'm not sure I quite understand your point, ambassador. Are you advocating that military installations be protected from attack? How in the multiverse do you expect member nations to advance in war at all? As long as all efforts to minimise the risk of damaging a medical facility are made, I do not believe that what you appear to be arguing for is valid. And I don't know where your gripe about "the type of attack and its accuracy" is coming from. Destructive military action is defined as damaging - pretty genetic, no? - and with the potential to cause fatalities - also doesn't seem to be particularly specific. The reference to such attacks as having an "often low-accuracy area of effect" is merely a guideline, per the use of "often".

Thirdly, Youssath is extremely concerned over Clause 2 of the "Wartime Healthcare Protections" resolution, which mandates that all "member nations (must) document the locations of all medical facilities in areas controlled by them". This sets a dangerous situation for all WA member nations here, as it violates national security and intelligence gathering by warranting for the disclosure of all medical locations within the nation. While the rest of the resolution does protect these medical installations from being attacked, often at times there are also key military installations in close proximity to the medical hub (so that emergencies can be treated quickly), making it not only difficult to attack without violating this resolution but it gives away key military strongholds and can result in mass casualties in a war should such documentation fall in the wrong hands.

'I will note that there is no requirement to make such documentation publicly known and that member nations would of course be perfectly entitled to take every precaution to protect this information. However, I do agree that this clause may need some reworking. Indeed, the very fact that this information is not to be shared makes me on second thought question the necessity of the existence of such documentation when it could, as ypu say, fall into the wrong hands. As long as medical facilities are clearly identifiable from the ground and from the air I believe the purposes of this proposal would be fulfilled and, subject to objections from the Araraukian delegation, I'd gladly remove the requirement to document the location of medical facilities.

Lastly, Youssath states that Clause 7 of this resolution is in similarity towards GAR #121 in its interpretation towards the revoking of such protections if a medical facility is found to conducting operations than what it is intended to do. Clause 7 states that any medical installations that conduct "military actions of war" or is maintained for similar purposes will not be covered in this resolution. Similarly, Clause 3 of GAR #121 also states that any attempts to produce or stockpile non-medical supplies or is used for camouflage that can be deemed as "military actions of war" will not be covered under the same protections. These clauses are similar and as such, there is no need to include Clause 7 if it has already been defined clearly within international law.

'The exceptions to GAR 121 are ... uh ... exceptions to GAR 121, ambassador. They revoke the protections granted in that resolution. If I wish to remove the protections granted by this proposal in specific situations - as I do - I must do so in the text of this proposal. Moreover, I do not wish to make exceptions subject to the same conditions as those made in GAR 121, which, as pointed out in our draft repeal of that resolution (OOC: which I won't link here because I am on my phone and that's not happening but the link is in the OP) are far too broad.

While my administration can support greater protections for medical personnel and their operations, this resolution, unfortunately, only provides ambiguity towards the topic at hand and can be exploited if interpreted wrongly. Hopefully, the ambassadors of this august council can come to their senses and realize the faults of this resolution.

'I hope my responses have addressed your concerns and please do speak up if you have anything more you wish to discuss.'

OOC: If you guys need any further feedback on this issue, please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to respond!

OOC: Thanks for taking the time to give feedback

1. "Understandable. However, my issue is that the preliminary findings concluded with the statement that 'these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive'. The existence of GAR #6 and GAR #121 directly contradict this statement of yours, and while I will not pursue this matter since it does not form the actual thesis of my argument (just pointing out that preambulatory clauses are misleading), we would like to inform you that several ambassadors of this very council can leave very confused with why you brought up this resolution when there are incorrect and misleading preliminary findings leading to this resolution you are pushing for."

2. (OOC: I can understand where you are coming from since you want to ensure that there is a delicate balance between inclusiveness of certain groups during an armed conflict. However, what I have just mentioned can be a 'legal loophole' for others to exploit upon, and if not addressed appropriately, the consequences can be dire or even dangerous given the lack of clarity towards the term "non-civilian". As such, maybe I can recommend that you coin the definition of a "non-civilian" as someone in the employment of a nation's military forces or is actively partaking in armed conflict against a hostile nation? That way, you can close this loophole since it provides more clarity towards the issue at hand here.)

3. (OOC: Mhm. I will have to agree with your point on this. The original point that I was trying to drive to was that the definition of "destructive military action" is way too specific, since Clause 4 states that it is "a war crime to intentionally target a medical facility for a destructive military action", to which destructive military action doesn't include precise or deliberate attacks against a medical facility. For example, it is illegal in the resolution to use an artillery barrage against a medical facility (since artillery is low-accuracy fire and is often damaging and can produce casualties, but enemy fire against a medical facility (assault rifles have a good firing accuracy, are not damaging to structures and can still produce casualties) is not covered properly within this resolution. Hopefully, you can see this point I am trying to throw here.)

4. "The identification of medical facilities by air and ground is perfectly reasonable since it allows military personnel to take note of humanitarian facilities within the area. If there really is a need to document the location of medical facilities, perhaps you can entrust such documentation to an international body to help overlook these matters."

5. "Understandable. I do agree that the exceptions made by GAR #121 are way too broad at times and it isn't overly specific at times. While I am not against having duplicates of similar clauses within the books of international laws, I feel that these exemption clauses can be built in such a way that it adds on with existing consensus, rather than simply creating an all-new interpretation towards these clauses."

6. "Your responses have appropriately handled the issues that I have raised. However, there may be still some pending issues that need to be solved before I can give my vote on this."

OOC: No worries! All in a day's work, my friend.

[Araraukar]

opposes the preamble and preliminary findings made by The Holy Bouncy Slothland of Maowi and The Grand Nation of Araraukar.

OOC: Hey now, the preamble isn't really mine in content... Also, the nation titles are generally speaking not used when addressing people in IC, rather you'd more commonly use "ambassador of [nation name]".

re: mapping/documenting medical facilities: Slight left-over from previous forms of the draft, but not one that should be removed, given that your own military should absolutely be aware of medical facility locations within areas controlled by them. It's like warfare basics. And given that enemies (I know we can only legislate for member nations, but in RL hitting hospitals is serious bad PR, so tends to be avoided in any case) need to avoid hitting them too, I'm not entirely certain why them "leaking" (or just being shared outright) would be such a bad thing?

re: the civilian/non-civilian thing: The issue with adding "or actively partaking in armed conflict" or wording to that effect is that it would dilute the focus. The focus of this particular instance is to protect the facilities and the patients being treated there, when said facilities and patients (and medical staff) are non-civilians as defined. If you'd want civilian guerrilla fighters or whatnot to be included - and don't think they already are (though I'd suggest reading very carefully anything ever passed by Separatist Peoples) - feel free to try to address that in a separate draft. Then again, civilian gun wackos having a go at an enemy army could count at the very least as terrorists...

re: accuracy of destructive military action: The original draft talked about bombardments specifically. My rewrite was intended to be more inclusive and indeed catch everything from nukes to rifle fire. Hence the "often" used in a way of an example, rather than as a definition of its own. I can rewrite it to make it more obvious it's just an example, if that's the main issue.

re: committee involvement: NO. Just no. The reason I took it out was that 1. it'd create issues with practicality (waiting for a committee's decision before being allowed to do something?), 2. possibly create issues with GA #2 (WA not being allowed to "ratify" military attacks and so forth), and 3. randomly tagging on a committee on something that doesn't need committees is just stupid.

re: excemption clauses: I feel that the rewrittal of them is about as clear as is possible. If you think it's unclear, please explain it OOCly and specifically. (If it's the "military actions of war" part, feel free to suggest a better wording.)

[Youssath]

opposes the preamble and preliminary findings made by The Holy Bouncy Slothland of Maowi and The Grand Nation of Araraukar.

OOC: Hey now, the preamble isn't really mine in content... Also, the nation titles are generally speaking not used when addressing people in IC, rather you'd more commonly use "ambassador of [nation name]".

re: mapping/documenting medical facilities: Slight left-over from previous forms of the draft, but not one that should be removed, given that your own military should absolutely be aware of medical facility locations within areas controlled by them. It's like warfare basics. And given that enemies (I know we can only legislate for member nations, but in RL hitting hospitals is serious bad PR, so tends to be avoided in any case) need to avoid hitting them too, I'm not entirely certain why them "leaking" (or just being shared outright) would be such a bad thing?

re: the civilian/non-civilian thing: The issue with adding "or actively partaking in armed conflict" or wording to that effect is that it would dilute the focus. The focus of this particular instance is to protect the facilities and the patients being treated there, when said facilities and patients (and medical staff) are non-civilians as defined. If you'd want civilian guerrilla fighters or whatnot to be included - and don't think they already are (though I'd suggest reading very carefully anything ever passed by Separatist Peoples) - feel free to try to address that in a separate draft. Then again, civilian gun wackos having a go at an enemy army could count at the very least as terrorists...

re: accuracy of destructive military action: The original draft talked about bombardments specifically. My rewrite was intended to be more inclusive and indeed catch everything from nukes to rifle fire. Hence the "often" used in a way of an example, rather than as a definition of its own. I can rewrite it to make it more obvious it's just an example, if that's the main issue.

re: committee involvement: NO. Just no. The reason I took it out was that 1. it'd create issues with practicality (waiting for a committee's decision before being allowed to do something?), 2. possibly create issues with GA #2 (WA not being allowed to "ratify" military attacks and so forth), and 3. randomly tagging on a committee on something that doesn't need committees is just stupid.

re: excemption clauses: I feel that the rewrittal of them is about as clear as is possible. If you think it's unclear, please explain it OOCly and specifically. (If it's the "military actions of war" part, feel free to suggest a better wording.)

I love mentioning nations as grandeur as possible, it's kind of in my writing. If your nation would be so kind as to mention all of its honourable titles, I don't mind giving an introductory statement before getting to the argument.

RE: mapping/documenting medical facilities: Because sometimes we cannot entrust all parties to do the right thing in armed conflict, and that there will always be a notorious one or two who will want to "cut corners" in order to ensure a quick and decisive victory. Getting enemy infirmary locations probably won't do them much good, but it will put these infirmary locations at greater risk and give away any key military installations within the vicinity (since you don't build your communication centres, equipment storage - places where personnel are present and have the risk of being attacked - at an hour drive away from the infirmary.) Hence, there is no need to document such locations if it jeopardizes national security and creates more casualties in the long run. At best, just painting the international protected symbols will be sufficient enough to let enemies know that this building is a location for healing.

RE: the civilian/non-civilian thing: It won't dilute the focus if you include the word "or" in your statement. Having non-citizens be categorized as those "employed within the armed forces" or "actively partaking in armed conflict" will at least provide clarity towards your definition and opens up more people who attempt to attack healthcare institutions illegally. I will probably write a draft about this in a few hours, although I have a lab report that I must attend to as soon as possible.

RE: accuracy of destructive military action: Ah, this brings clarity towards the statement you are addressing here. I would likely drop this issue now, although I must say that I will try to help to reword the definition in the draft since it can be a bit... tricky.

RE: committee involvement: Perfectly understandable. I see the rationale of what you are pointing towards and will not pursue getting an international committee to intervene in armed conflicts.

RE: excemption clauses: I will try to craft an exemption clause for both of your references soon. Of course, I will leave it up to you guys to accept or reject it.

[Araraukar]

RE: mapping/documenting medical facilities: Because sometimes we cannot entrust all parties to do the right thing in armed conflict

OOC: That's not something that can be properly addressed by any resolution, given that we can't mandate roleplay onto people. But that's why there's the whole war crime clause.

Getting enemy infirmary locations probably won't do them much good, but it will put these infirmary locations at greater risk

How, if you're banned from targeting them?

Hence, there is no need to document such locations

How will your own forces know not to target their own medical facilities in artillery bombardment if they don't know where they are? Like, seriously. Maps are made of various things to do with active war zones. The one with infirmaries on it is going to be a very low priority compared to anything of strategic or tactical importance, like, say, ammunition or fuel storages. If you already have a map of those and are able to keep them a secret, a map of medical centers shouldn't be a big problem.

At best, just painting the international protected symbols will be sufficient enough to let enemies know that this building is a location for healing.

So by your logic as per the maps, that would be the same as painting bullseye symbols on them?

Having non-citizens be categorized as those "employed within the armed forces" or "actively partaking in armed conflict" will at least provide clarity towards your definition and opens up more people who attempt to attack healthcare institutions illegally.

...what?

[Youssath]

RE: mapping/documenting medical facilities: Because sometimes we cannot entrust all parties to do the right thing in armed conflict

OOC: That's not something that can be properly addressed by any resolution, given that we can't mandate roleplay onto people. But that's why there's the whole war crime clause.

Getting enemy infirmary locations probably won't do them much good, but it will put these infirmary locations at greater risk

How, if you're banned from targeting them?

Hence, there is no need to document such locations

How will your own forces know not to target their own medical facilities in artillery bombardment if they don't know where they are? Like, seriously. Maps are made of various things to do with active war zones. The one with infirmaries on it is going to be a very low priority compared to anything of strategic or tactical importance, like, say, ammunition or fuel storages. If you already have a map of those and are able to keep them a secret, a map of medical centers shouldn't be a big problem.

At best, just painting the international protected symbols will be sufficient enough to let enemies know that this building is a location for healing.

So by your logic as per the maps, that would be the same as painting bullseye symbols on them?

Having non-citizens be categorized as those "employed within the armed forces" or "actively partaking in armed conflict" will at least provide clarity towards your definition and opens up more people who attempt to attack healthcare institutions illegally.

...what?

I will leave this up to your own interpretation to see if you want to warrant a change in your resolution. Generally speaking, you are only partially correct on the fact of the disclosure of medical hubs (since I have stated previously, the rest of the resolution forbids the attacking of these facilities). However, if you read my line of reasoning, often at times there are also important key military infrastructure such as communications, radar, airfields etc that are in close proximity with these medical hubs (and as I stated before, if you have been into a military camp or faced conscription, there is always a medical facility in every military base). There is no military installation that exists with just solely a medical hub itself, mind you, and I want to reiterate once again that the disclosure of all medical facilities on paper, even as you may claim that there will be no damage towards them, will indirectly give away key military installations to the enemy, even those that have not been explored or exposed yet by enemy air or reconnaissance forces. This will ultimately violate national security and undermine the war effort since the enemy will know where troop counts and population are concentrated on from implying these medical locations, even those they are not allowed to directly attack them. The larger the medical facility, the more the enemy will know that this is an important key military stronghold since it serves as a central main point for any casualties incurred in nearby areas (you don't build a hospital an hour ride away from concentrated population centres, that's just logistically stupid) - and that the likelihood of military infrastructure detrimental to their war effort can be found there as well.

As for the international symbols, I simply meant the marking of areas through the use of symbols such that they can be identified from the air as well as the ground. I was hoping you could catch that, but nope.

As for the non-citizen definition, I will just reiterate what I have just told to Maowi:

The use of the term "non-civilian" to define all military personnel employed in the armed forces is incorrect, as there should be a better term to define military personnel rather than just giving a negative terminology on the word "civilian". For example, civilian specialists employed by the government in defence research or private military contractors are officially not part of the armed forces' employment, but they are critical in the war effort directly or indirectly. If they are used to commit crimes against humanity by attacking medical installations, this resolution does not effectively provide enough interpretations and coverage for these types of scenarios.

(OOC: I can understand where you are coming from since you want to ensure that there is a delicate balance between inclusiveness of certain groups during an armed conflict. However, what I have just mentioned can be a 'legal loophole' for others to exploit upon, and if not addressed appropriately, the consequences can be dire or even dangerous given the lack of clarity towards the term "non-civilian". As such, maybe I can recommend that you coin the definition of a "non-civilian" as someone in the employment of a nation's military forces or is actively partaking in armed conflict against a hostile nation? That way, you can close this loophole since it provides more clarity towards the issue at hand here.)

I hope this settles things before I proceed forward on the draft.

[Araraukar]

However, if you read my line of reasoning, often at times there are also important key military infrastructure such as communications, radar, airfields etc that are in close proximity with these medical hubs (and as I stated before, if you have been into a military camp or faced conscription, there is always a medical facility in every military base).

OOC: Yes, and a military camp with one tent set aside for medical treatments would either not count for this proposal at all (due to clauses 5 and 7), as such a camp would be a strategic military target of its own, medical facility notwithstanding. But a proper field hospital would. And it's not just temporary structures the proposal is concerned with, but think of a regular civilian hospital in an area where civilians have been evacuated from, and which is now being used by the military.

There is no military installation that exists with just solely a medical hub itself, mind you

Never say never in NationStates...

the disclosure of all medical facilities on paper, even as you may claim that there will be no damage towards them, will indirectly give away key military installations to the enemy

Any self-respecting military operation is going to have a map of those very key military installations themselves, whether or not they contain hospitals, and usually have little problem keeping said maps safe enough. So, again, it would be insane to claim that having a map of medical centers for your own use would somehow be worse. Nothing in the proposal requires you to share the map with anyone else.

(you don't build a hospital an hour ride away from concentrated population centres, that's just logistically stupid)

You do if there's an airport there.

As for the non-citizen definition

Have you checked all the resolutions ever passed by SP? All "rules of war" ones, basically. If they count as civilians as per a pre-existing resolution, we can't (or at least shouldn't) reclassify them as non-civilians. And if they're classified as non-civilians, we can't reclassify them as civilians. All in all, a resolution only does what it says it does. If you'd like to write a specific resolution to deal with all the "grey zone" people in an armed conflict, that isn't already done by existing resolutions, then good luck writing one up.

Oh and clause 4 doesn't specify you need to be a member of armed forces to commit a warcrime, so that part of the argument is null anyway.

Any added vagueness will just, well, add unnecessary vagueness.

[Maowi]

OOC: BUMP!

[Araraukar]

OOC: I finally figured out why the last clause didn't look quite right. Could you make this change: "or is maintained despite risks, or when attempting to use medical personnel and patients as living shields to protect a strategic military target", to cover the the whole "one medical care room with one medic in a munitions storage building" thing. Meaning, it catches also the non-intentional "human shields" thing. And also makes it species neutral.

[Maowi]

OOC: I finally figured out why the last clause didn't look quite right. Could you make this change: "or is maintained despite risks, or when attempting to use medical personnel and patients as living shields to protect a strategic military target", to cover the the whole "one medical care room with one medic in a munitions storage building" thing. Meaning, it catches also the non-intentional "human shields" thing. And also makes it species neutral.

OOC: I like the way you've rewritten that but maybe the whole clause should read "Clarifies that a medical facility that is also used for military actions of war, or is maintained despite ongoing attempts to use its occupant medical personnel and patients as living shields to protect a strategic military target, does not fall under the protections laid out in this resolution" for better clarity? That way a) it would have to be the personnel and patients inside that particular medical facility being used as living shields for it to be disqualified and b) it makes grammatical sense.

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump.

I changed 1.d. -

Defines ... a medical facility as a site used for medical treatment, triage or transport of patients by medical personnel, and the associated infrastructure, which bears clearly visible markings indicating its status as such

- by removing 'of patients by medical personnel,' protecting all medical facilities from being targeted by military forces.

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump again ... anyone have anything to say?

[Wallenburg]

"Does 5c also prohibit the capture or arrest of medical personnel or their patients? Because it currently reads that way."

[Maowi]

"Does 5c also prohibit the capture or arrest of medical personnel or their patients? Because it currently reads that way."

"(I assume you mean 6c ...) But yes, in practice, it protects medical personnel and patients from capture while they are carrying out their medical duties, or being treated, respectively ... unless they go voluntarily, which would not be too difficult to make the best option for them - after that point, they would be protected by GAR 18."

[Wallenburg]

"Does 5c also prohibit the capture or arrest of medical personnel or their patients? Because it currently reads that way."

"(I assume you mean 6c ...) But yes, in practice, it protects medical personnel and patients from capture while they are carrying out their medical duties, or being treated, respectively ... unless they go voluntarily, which would not be too difficult to make the best option for them - after that point, they would be protected by GAR 18."

"Doesn't that make any military hospital a human shield for all the military operations surrounding it? If an opposing force cannot attack the hospital or capture it, then you effectively render them shields under which military forces can operate and attack with impunity."