[Abandoned] Ending All War Between Member States

[Umeria]

"To prohibit war would be preposterous and the most pacifist among us surely understands on some pragmatic level the impossibility and impracticality of such an arrangement, no?"

Please read the following:

Before anyone asks how this will be enforced: all WA resolutions are enforced automatically. That's just how the system works.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why would the guise of charity be needed if everyone was a ruthless bastard deep down? People would just acknowledge that it's all part of the global chess game and accept whatever cruelties arise, would they not?"

"Governments see it for what it is. People are often foolish and naive. You conflate different actors."

"If a nation dominates another in one aspect, they are likely to be dominant in others as well. It is quite unreasonable to assume that the party with a weaker military is the oppressor."

"This is presented as axiomatic when it is not so. Nations absolutely may have a powerful economic influence without a corresponding military strength. To say nothing of the ease of influencing financial leverage over vast distance and the comparative difficulty of exercising military leverage over the same distance. This is not a complicated concept."

"We will not accomplish anything if we fear those who disagree with us."

"This is a poor attempt at a pithy rejoinder that does nothing to suggest nations will not resign and resort to war without restrictions imposed by WA law."

[Umeria]

"Governments see it for what it is. People are often foolish and naive. You conflate different actors."

"So you agree that the common person has political power, yes? Because otherwise the government wouldn't care about what they think. What I am arguing is that, due to public pressures, governments have done and will continue to do 'foolish and naive' actions for the sole purpose of helping people in need."

"This is presented as axiomatic when it is not so. Nations absolutely may have a powerful economic influence without a corresponding military strength. To say nothing of the ease of influencing financial leverage over vast distance and the comparative difficulty of exercising military leverage over the same distance. This is not a complicated concept."

"The opposite may be the case is well. It is difficult to have a strong military without a strong economy. But the point is that military capabilities are not indicative of other advantages or disadvantages a nation may have."

"This is a poor attempt at a pithy rejoinder that does nothing to suggest nations will not resign and resort to war without restrictions imposed by WA law."

"The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a significant amount of nations want to wage war so badly that they would be willing to forgo all of the other benefits the WA provides in order to do so."

[Ardiveds]

Delegate Jim reads the paper on his desk and breaks out in a fit of laughter. After almost falling off the chair, he manages to compose himself. "The Umerians are smoking some strong shit I must say. This fecking hippie ass piece of shit has about as much chance of passing as a repeal of GAR 10 or 499. Last week I had to face a fecking prude and this week a high hippie, it seems the GA truely brings out the worst in both wings."

[Umeria]

Delegate Jim reads the paper on his desk and breaks out in a fit of laughter. After almost falling off the chair, he manages to compose himself. "The Umerians are smoking some strong shit I must say. This fecking hippie ass piece of shit has about as much chance of passing as a repeal of GAR 10 or 499. Last week I had to face a fecking prude and this week a high hippie, it seems the GA truely brings out the worst in both wings."

"Indeed, recreational substances are quite effective at calming one's nerves. Would you like to try some?"

[Kenmoria]

“This is a good concept, I admit, but I think the other ambassadors have demonstrated why this wouldn’t work in practicality. Would it also contradict article 10 of GA #002? This does sound rather a lot like denouncing a lot of wars, or at least not remaining neutral.”

[Alcona and Hubris]

(OOC:So, somewhere from the mist of times comes a laugh...)

An old man sits on a stool in a bar somewhere and begins to rant but is captured on a couple dozen cell phone screens.

"Stop wars between member states...Sounds like a damn great idea until you start looking for how to stop wars...the reason they tried to set up the World Court...bah...I'll tell you the four major issues with this whole concept:

1-It stops wars between member states directly, but there are enough non-member states that any member state need only fuel a proxy war and the member state has their hands tied in acting against the war.

2-It doesn't deal with near war or covert war behaviors such as internal destabilization, fueling internal revolutions, economic warfare, a variety of tools of those from the Kissinger school of diplomacy. I mean under this all someone has to do is set up a terrorist organization in a target country, then feed them weapons and money to effectively induce force to bring a country to its knees. And in some cases all of those options can kill more innocents than a regulated war would.

3-What happens when neither side of an argument raised before the Committee will budge? If Noopstan and Koopstan both want the Holy Valley of Peace what exactly is this Stop Killing Me Committee supposed to do about it? Negotiate forever and a day? No.

The real problem with this proposal is that it removes the supposed ability to commit direct war, but is ineffectual in dealing with the underlying conflict that would have caused the war in the first place. And unless that is delt with then nations are going to go to 'other' means of conflict...with dire consequences.

4-Any person can stand around and say "This will be enforced by the automatic enforcement mechanism" but legal documents need to reference said enforcement clauses. Even if they are in already existing legislation...even a third year law student knows that basic fact.

Bah, this is the same idealism that led to all those wars with Melkor...more foolish idealism without taking into thought the unfortunate fact that the world is filled and led by humans...who are damned good at finding loop holes and killing each other to satisfy their egos."

He bangs his fist on the counter again and yells, "Where the hell is my Whiskey damn you all!"

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador," said Seretis, alone, and looking rather out of place without the other two members of the delegation, "I do have a question, before we begin? What fantasy land do you live in? You're clearly an adult, so I would rather hope this is delusion rather than utterly childish thinking, but I've been surprised by foreigners before."

Recognizing that violent conflict is inherently unjust;

"Plainly and demonstrably false; is it unjust for the Imperium to defend its territories from invaders? When the Aeravahn attacked Iraet, was it unjust for the Second Fleet to defend civilian lives? Is it unjust now, for the Fourth Fleet to reclaim the Exterior Territories from a foreign occupying force? Beyond our own affairs, is it unjust to intervene in genocide? Slavery? Is it further unjust for the victims thereof to rise up in violent conflict against such things? Do answer these questions, I look forward to your insights."

Believing that none of this bloodshed would be necessary if we all just sat down together and worked out our differences over a nice hot cup of tea;

"Perhaps it is childishness then."

1) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "member-state war" as a war in which all involved parties are members of the World Assembly;

"If a single non-member-state is involved, it is, miraculously, acceptable? The Imperium is permitted to annihilate a Member-State so long as we also commit to the destruction of some non-member state? I, do hope you understand that is a flaw, even in your own goals. Nothing prevents Member-States from 'declaring war' against a non-member ally, and conveniently wrapping it up as your capital burns."

2) Mandates that member nations cease all involvement with any member-state wars they are currently in;
3) Prohibits member nations from initiating any new member-state wars;

"Do allow me a moment to illustrate an example for you, apropos of nothing at all, of course; say, your government is a shambling mess, unable to defend its borders or enforce its laws. The Imperium decides that, in the best interests of your people, - a purely humanitarian act, - we shall take up the cause of policing and defense that your government has abandoned. Of course, officers of Internal Security are obligated to enforce Imperial Law, and certainly your government is not capable of providing for that. Relevant buildings are appropriated, and Civil Oversight establishes its offices for the daily paperwork of a nation; identity documents, communication, judicial matters, you understand.

Your Government may object, of course, those offices were surely of great value to whatever administrative bodies they once housed, but, what is to be done? Internal Security is perfectly able to secure the facilities, and, well, if an agent of a foreign government were to attack a member of Internal Security, that would be an act of war. Indeed, to reduce confusion about appropriate offices for the public, remaining non-Imperial offices may be obligated to close, or, otherwise blockaded from operation - one cannot have misinformation or false documents spreading of course. And, really, once that is done, perhaps as a reminder of what bodies are appropriate for public services and governance, we shall take down your flags, and replace them with our own.

In case it isn't clear, I am describing an invasion. One, conveniently, without any violence on the part of the invader; and one you are, by this proposal, completely unable to defend against. It's not a threat, of course, merely a hypothetical for your consideration; I for one, am committed to peace, I would never genuinely propose the overtaking of a foreign state."

4) Establishes the Committee for Not Killing Each Other (CNKEO);

"Amusing to someone, I'm sure."

5) Instructs the CNKEO to host and mediate civil discussions between representatives of member nations who hold grievances against each other that would otherwise result in a member-state war, and to help these member nations reach a peaceful resolution to said grievances;

"And if there is no peaceful resolution? One side declares a border theirs, the other rejects it, neither cares to lose jurisdiction over the resources within the disputed territories. Nothing to be achieved by negotiation.

To return to my prior example; the Imperium has no interest in leaving a country to anarchy and failed-states. Why would we ever consider the withdrawal of our forces? Indeed, we seek to expand our presence ten-thousand fold, declare the country a new segment of the Interior Territories. If the current occupants object, well, what is to be done?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"So you agree that the common person has political power, yes? Because otherwise the government wouldn't care about what they think. What I am arguing is that, due to public pressures, governments have done and will continue to do 'foolish and naive' actions for the sole purpose of helping people in need."

"Not nearly enough to matter on matters of arch foreign policy. Government charity is an illusion. And rightly so."

"The opposite may be the case is well. It is difficult to have a strong military without a strong economy. But the point is that military capabilities are not indicative of other advantages or disadvantages a nation may have."

"It is not that hard to have a formidable military and a poor economy when one has a large mass of bodies. Come now."

"The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a significant amount of nations want to wage war so badly that they would be willing to forgo all of the other benefits the WA provides in order to do so."

"World Assembly membership is almost all burdens. The best benefits for governments are free trade zones and some limited protections from tit-for-tat acts like violating rules of war. Membership can be revoked and invoked within hours. Resignation from the World Assembly gives an attacking nation huge momentum, as it prevents a foreign nation from also resigning and relying on illegal tactics and strategies before the attacker gains benefit from them.

"If you try to ban war, nations will hold the protection of World Assembly law as long as it is convenient and disregard it when it is not. Without it, nations are free to use wanton force. It is better by far to allow armed conflict under limited circumstances than incentivize nations to evade regulation entirely. This is not complicated. Need I use handpuppets in the future?"

[Wallenburg]

"It would be beneficial to not encourage World Assembly members to resign from the organisation for the purposes of having a war, but the be bound by the multitude of resolutions which dictate minimum standards for their conduct within one."

"This is the principal issue. If members resign every time they determine a war to be necessary, they are no longer bound to comply to any of the many resolutions addressing war crimes. What this proposal does is not foster peace but enable heinous acts and wartime terrorism."

[Umeria]

“This is a good concept, I admit, but I think the other ambassadors have demonstrated why this wouldn’t work in practicality. Would it also contradict article 10 of GA #002? This does sound rather a lot like denouncing a lot of wars, or at least not remaining neutral.”

"That article refers to the WA getting involved in wars directly. This proposal is a mandate for member nations to change their involvement in wars."

snip

Please read the following:

Before anyone asks how this will be enforced: all WA resolutions are enforced automatically. That's just how the system works.

Any person can stand around and say "This will be enforced by the automatic enforcement mechanism" but legal documents need to reference said enforcement clauses.

That is not the case for WA resolutions. Take a look at every resolution ever passed. Notice how none of them reference enforcement mechanisms either.

"Ambassador," said Seretis, alone, and looking rather out of place without the other two members of the delegation, "I do have a question, before we begin? What fantasy land do you live in? You're clearly an adult, so I would rather hope this is delusion rather than utterly childish thinking, but I've been surprised by foreigners before."

"Ah, my mistake. I had forgotten that it is impossible for any war to end. Once started, a war will inevitably continue until the end of time. A basic principle that I had foolishly ignored."

"Plainly and demonstrably false; is it unjust for the Imperium to defend its territories from invaders? When the Aeravahn attacked Iraet, was it unjust for the Second Fleet to defend civilian lives?"

"It was unjust for the invaders to attack in the first place. I agree that self-defense is moral, so I've changed 'conflict' to 'offensives'."

"Beyond our own affairs, is it unjust to intervene in genocide? Slavery? Is it further unjust for the victims thereof to rise up in violent conflict against such things?"

"No WA member engages in genocide or slavery, as both are banned under WA law."

"Perhaps it is childishness then."

"How would you suggest I word that clause in order to sound less childish?"

"If a single non-member-state is involved, it is, miraculously, acceptable?"

"All war is unacceptable, but only some wars are capable of being ended by this august body. It seemed unreasonable to mandate that member nations cease their war operations when the other side is free to continue those operations."

"The Imperium is permitted to annihilate a Member-State so long as we also commit to the destruction of some non-member state? I, do hope you understand that is a flaw, even in your own goals. Nothing prevents Member-States from 'declaring war' against a non-member ally, and conveniently wrapping it up as your capital burns."

"I agree that this needs to be changed; perhaps by considering the conflict with the nonmember as a separate war."

"we shall take up the cause of policing and defense"

"This sounds like using force against the people of another nation, without that nation's consent. How is that not an act of war, and thus not permissible by the proposal?"

"Amusing to someone, I'm sure."

"I am open to suggestions for a more professional name."

"And if there is no peaceful resolution? One side declares a border theirs, the other rejects it, neither cares to lose jurisdiction over the resources within the disputed territories. Nothing to be achieved by negotiation."

"Perhaps a jury of representatives from other member nations shall decide?" Lockwood hovers his pencil over a post-it note on the draft.

"To return to my prior example; the Imperium has no interest in leaving a country to anarchy and failed-states. Why would we ever consider the withdrawal of our forces?"

"If the occupying forces were already in the opposing country at the time of the proposal's passing, then whatever diplomatic mechanism we've devised, such as my suggestion of a jury, will decide that they need to withdraw. Unfortunately, such a mechanism is not currently in the proposal, it being an unfinished draft."

"Indeed, we seek to expand our presence ten-thousand fold, declare the country a new segment of the Interior Territories. If the current occupants object, well, what is to be done?"

"That would certainly not be allowed, as it would constitute further involvement in the war."

"Not nearly enough to matter on matters of arch foreign policy. Government charity is an illusion. And rightly so."

"You don't see the contradiction here? If it didn't matter, the illusion wouldn't exist in the first place! If the public has the power to force the government to maintain an illusion, do they not also have the power to force other policies?"

"It is not that hard to have a formidable military and a poor economy when one has a large mass of bodies. Come now."

"We could throw examples at each other all day. Yes, there are nations that economically dominate others despite having a smaller population, but there are instances of the reverse being the case as well. Again, the point is that a nation's military capabilities do not correlate with its level of economic or diplomatic dominance, so we shouldn't use it as the deciding factor for who needs to be liberated."

"It would be beneficial to not encourage World Assembly members to resign from the organisation for the purposes of having a war, but the be bound by the multitude of resolutions which dictate minimum standards for their conduct within one."

"This is the principal issue. If members resign every time they determine a war to be necessary, they are no longer bound to comply to any of the many resolutions addressing war crimes. What this proposal does is not foster peace but enable heinous acts and wartime terrorism."

"Isn't this 'tipping point' reasoning the same argument that is used against the abortion resolutions? What is the difference between the two issues that makes such reasoning valid in one but not the other?"

"It is better by far to allow armed conflict under limited circumstances"

"Aha! I sense a compromise forming? What are these limited circumstances you speak of?" Lockwood silently hopes the Separatist ambassador does not claim that the current resolutions regarding war are enough.

OOC: So, um, about that claim of illegality?

[Separatist Peoples]

"You don't see the contradiction here? If it didn't matter, the illusion wouldn't exist in the first place! If the public has the power to force the government to maintain an illusion, do they not also have the power to force other policies?"

"There is no contradiction here. Nongoverment charity exists to fulfill individual needs for self image. Governments are far more rational."

"We could throw examples at each other all day. Yes, there are nations that economically dominate others despite having a smaller population, but there are instances of the reverse being the case as well. Again, the point is that a nation's military capabilities do not correlate with its level of economic or diplomatic dominance, so we shouldn't use it as the deciding factor for who needs to be liberated."

"All the more reason to allow nations to use all the tools at their disposal to protect their interests."

"Isn't this 'tipping point' reasoning the same argument that is used against the abortion resolutions? What is the difference between the two issues that makes such reasoning valid in one but not the other?"

"Because the point of enforcing abortion was, in large part, due to ongoing noncompliance undermining the WA, and not access to abortion per se."

"Aha! I sense a compromise forming? What are these limited circumstances you speak of?" Lockwood silently hopes the Separatist ambassador does not claim that the current resolutions regarding war are enough.

"Extant law is sufficient."

OOC: So, um, about that claim of illegality?

Contradicts GAR#2 Sec. II.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: There's also article 10: "Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars ..."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: There's also article 10: "Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars ..."

OOC: Yes. But, frankly, legality issues are not as much fun as policy.

[Fruit Smiles]

Just a question. I've received telegrams about the WA passing laws and stuff, but nobody ever comes to enforce it. How exactly will the WA say to two nations with huge militaries who are slugging each other, "Oi! You! Stop that!" Also, wouldn't this legislation just turn all the nations with huge militaries against the WA?

[Romextly]

BOOOO!

[Wallenburg]

"This is the principal issue. If members resign every time they determine a war to be necessary, they are no longer bound to comply to any of the many resolutions addressing war crimes. What this proposal does is not foster peace but enable heinous acts and wartime terrorism."

"Isn't this 'tipping point' reasoning the same argument that is used against the abortion resolutions? What is the difference between the two issues that makes such reasoning valid in one but not the other?"

"Abortion is a contentious medical practice which generates a policy disagreement. War is a tool whose optionality is necessary to the sovereignty of the state. The state can continue to exist without a say on abortion policy. Not so when it is told it may not do battle."

[Umeria]

"There is no contradiction here. Nongoverment charity exists to fulfill individual needs for self image. Governments are far more rational."

"I was referring to government charity, which, again, would not exist if the common person had no power."

"All the more reason to allow nations to use all the tools at their disposal to protect their interests."

"Why is self-interest paramount? I thought the World Assembly was in the business of improving the world, one resolution at a time."

"Because the point of enforcing abortion was, in large part, due to ongoing noncompliance undermining the WA, and not access to abortion per se."

"So the pro-abortion bloc was not willing to simply leave the WA, but the pro-war block would be. I think I get it now."

"Abortion is a contentious medical practice which generates a policy disagreement. War is a tool whose optionality is necessary to the sovereignty of the state. The state can continue to exist without a say on abortion policy. Not so when it is told it may not do battle."

"You'd still be free to do battle, just not to nations with which there is a better alternative to resolve conflicts."

"Extant law is sufficient."

"Oh well. It was worth a try."

Contradicts GAR#2 Sec. II.

The proposal doesn't restrict defense against armed attack, as no member nation would be attacked by another member in the first place, so it doesn't contradict article 4. The only declarations of war would be those outside the scope of the proposal, so it's not article 5. I can kind of see how "prevent[ing] the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife" might be restricted, as that's kind of an internal war? So it contradicts article 6?

OOC: There's also article 10: "Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars ..."

I thought that was just a clarification that GAR #2 itself wasn't banning war. Although it looks like at least two Secretariat members think otherwise. Is this going to be marked illegal? If it is, I'd rather not pursue it further.

Just a question. I've received telegrams about the WA passing laws and stuff, but nobody ever comes to enforce it. How exactly will the WA say to two nations with huge militaries who are slugging each other, "Oi! You! Stop that!" Also, wouldn't this legislation just turn all the nations with huge militaries against the WA?

Please read the following:

Before anyone asks how this will be enforced: all WA resolutions are enforced automatically. That's just how the system works.

[Grays Harbor]

“This is a good concept, I admit, but I think the other ambassadors have demonstrated why this wouldn’t work in practicality. Would it also contradict article 10 of GA #002? This does sound rather a lot like denouncing a lot of wars, or at least not remaining neutral.”

"That article refers to the WA getting involved in wars directly. This proposal is a mandate for member nations to change their involvement in wars."

snip

Please read the following:

Before anyone asks how this will be enforced: all WA resolutions are enforced automatically. That's just how the system works.

Any person can stand around and say "This will be enforced by the automatic enforcement mechanism" but legal documents need to reference said enforcement clauses.

That is not the case for WA resolutions. Take a look at every resolution ever passed. Notice how none of them reference enforcement mechanisms either.

"Ambassador," said Seretis, alone, and looking rather out of place without the other two members of the delegation, "I do have a question, before we begin? What fantasy land do you live in? You're clearly an adult, so I would rather hope this is delusion rather than utterly childish thinking, but I've been surprised by foreigners before."

"Ah, my mistake. I had forgotten that it is impossible for any war to end. Once started, a war will inevitably continue until the end of time. A basic principle that I had foolishly ignored."

"Plainly and demonstrably false; is it unjust for the Imperium to defend its territories from invaders? When the Aeravahn attacked Iraet, was it unjust for the Second Fleet to defend civilian lives?"

"It was unjust for the invaders to attack in the first place. I agree that self-defense is moral, so I've changed 'conflict' to 'offensives'."

"Beyond our own affairs, is it unjust to intervene in genocide? Slavery? Is it further unjust for the victims thereof to rise up in violent conflict against such things?"

"No WA member engages in genocide or slavery, as both are banned under WA law."

"Perhaps it is childishness then."

"How would you suggest I word that clause in order to sound less childish?"

"If a single non-member-state is involved, it is, miraculously, acceptable?"

"All war is unacceptable, but only some wars are capable of being ended by this august body. It seemed unreasonable to mandate that member nations cease their war operations when the other side is free to continue those operations."

"The Imperium is permitted to annihilate a Member-State so long as we also commit to the destruction of some non-member state? I, do hope you understand that is a flaw, even in your own goals. Nothing prevents Member-States from 'declaring war' against a non-member ally, and conveniently wrapping it up as your capital burns."

"I agree that this needs to be changed; perhaps by considering the conflict with the nonmember as a separate war."

"we shall take up the cause of policing and defense"

"This sounds like using force against the people of another nation, without that nation's consent. How is that not an act of war, and thus not permissible by the proposal?"

"Amusing to someone, I'm sure."

"I am open to suggestions for a more professional name."

"And if there is no peaceful resolution? One side declares a border theirs, the other rejects it, neither cares to lose jurisdiction over the resources within the disputed territories. Nothing to be achieved by negotiation."

"Perhaps a jury of representatives from other member nations shall decide?" Lockwood hovers his pencil over a post-it note on the draft.

"To return to my prior example; the Imperium has no interest in leaving a country to anarchy and failed-states. Why would we ever consider the withdrawal of our forces?"

"If the occupying forces were already in the opposing country at the time of the proposal's passing, then whatever diplomatic mechanism we've devised, such as my suggestion of a jury, will decide that they need to withdraw. Unfortunately, such a mechanism is not currently in the proposal, it being an unfinished draft."

"Indeed, we seek to expand our presence ten-thousand fold, declare the country a new segment of the Interior Territories. If the current occupants object, well, what is to be done?"

"That would certainly not be allowed, as it would constitute further involvement in the war."

"Not nearly enough to matter on matters of arch foreign policy. Government charity is an illusion. And rightly so."

"You don't see the contradiction here? If it didn't matter, the illusion wouldn't exist in the first place! If the public has the power to force the government to maintain an illusion, do they not also have the power to force other policies?"

"It is not that hard to have a formidable military and a poor economy when one has a large mass of bodies. Come now."

"We could throw examples at each other all day. Yes, there are nations that economically dominate others despite having a smaller population, but there are instances of the reverse being the case as well. Again, the point is that a nation's military capabilities do not correlate with its level of economic or diplomatic dominance, so we shouldn't use it as the deciding factor for who needs to be liberated."

"This is the principal issue. If members resign every time they determine a war to be necessary, they are no longer bound to comply to any of the many resolutions addressing war crimes. What this proposal does is not foster peace but enable heinous acts and wartime terrorism."

"Isn't this 'tipping point' reasoning the same argument that is used against the abortion resolutions? What is the difference between the two issues that makes such reasoning valid in one but not the other?"

"It is better by far to allow armed conflict under limited circumstances"

"Aha! I sense a compromise forming? What are these limited circumstances you speak of?" Lockwood silently hopes the Separatist ambassador does not claim that the current resolutions regarding war are enough.

OOC: So, um, about that claim of illegality?

From Res 2:

Section II:

Rights and Duties in War:

Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

[Separatist Peoples]

The proposal doesn't restrict defense against armed attack, as no member nation would be attacked by another member in the first place, so it doesn't contradict article 4. The only declarations of war would be those outside the scope of the proposal, so it's not article 5. I can kind of see how "prevent[ing] the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife" might be restricted, as that's kind of an internal war? So it contradicts article 6?

OOC: We don't rule on hypos (and this is why I avoided the issue in detail before) but the clauses of GAR 2 don't limit themselves to responsive acts. Defense of self and others can absolutely include initiating conflict. Clause 4 would certainly permit defensive wars. Clause 5 would permit any kind of war without restriction when interceding on another state, which just begs for proxy conflicts.

Clause 10 is even more damning: it reserves the right to engage in war whole hog to member states. A clarification isn't needed for that clause, and I am unconvinced that the clause serves solely a prefatory role based on the lack of similar phrasing in other clauses.

The best you could manage, legally speaking, is maybe a bar on initiating war without a claim to 1. self defense, or 2. an intercession on behalf of another state. But given the absurd ease of using proxy's, I'm not sure how much you'd be able to prevent, policy-wise, but thats a different question entirely.

I can't speak to the rest of GenSec, but Banana and I would probably mark it illegal on submission based on the comments contained herein.

And GH now.

[Umeria]

So it looks like this proposal is illegal, at least until GAR #2 is repealed. Thanks for letting me know early on.

[Ardiveds]

"Indeed, recreational substances are quite effective at calming one's nerves. Would you like to try some?"

Delegate Jim wakes up all dizzy and confused, eyes red and teary, "So we tried some of that Umerian shit. The world turned all sunshine and rainbows with no wars in sight and everybody talking shit out. It was so glorious and then I woke up here. What did I miss?"