[SCRAPPED] Mediating POW Exchanges

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Maybe you should also include a clause that requires to issue soldiers ID tags? Like classic dog tags or individual identification chips we use in our military. That would’ve made things much easier for both sides...

[Jedinsto]

Missing in Action Soldier (herein MIA) as a member of a military organization who has not been confirmed as dead or alive by their own organization following an armed conflict with another military organization,
...
Requires member states to provide all known information on the status and/or details of the deaths of an MIA or POW when all three of the following conditions are met:

1. Such information is available to the inquired member nation and can safely be provided,
2. Such information is not available in the nation for which the MIA or POW served,
3. Such information is requested by the nation for which the MIA or POW served.

OOC: Better, but, still, how's Nation B going to know Nation A has declared Soldier C as MIA?

They wouldn't really need to know. They should have the information on hand if it is requested, and if not, then the information is not available and that's the end of it. And maybe a new identification tag act would be in order....

[Separatist Peoples]

"I don't see the international utility of this, ambassador. The presence of unaccounted for soldiers missing in action is sad, but what do states care if Bigtopian soldiers are missing in action? At least prisoners of war are of concern insofar as their exchange may require facilitation, but extant law provides for relevant POW concerns."

[Jedinsto]

"I don't see the international utility of this, ambassador. The presence of unaccounted for soldiers missing in action is sad, but what do states care if Bigtopian soldiers are missing in action? At least prisoners of war are of concern insofar as their exchange may require facilitation, but extant law provides for relevant POW concerns."

"I find it to be morally unacceptable that families are left in the dark as to how their family member died serving their country, when such information is available. This is an international issue, as it regards conflict between nations. We have the ability to end this practice of withholding death details, and I wish to use it. I am trying to make this as easy to comply with as possible, ambassador, so please bear with me."

OOC: Yeah yeah yeah, I know how much you dislike moralistic resolutions, but I like them quite a bit. This one especially. I feel that if it's easy enough to comply with, it can do no more harm than good as international law.

[Jedinsto]

My built-in replacement to the military identification tag act has been made.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I don't see the international utility of this, ambassador. The presence of unaccounted for soldiers missing in action is sad, but what do states care if Bigtopian soldiers are missing in action? At least prisoners of war are of concern insofar as their exchange may require facilitation, but extant law provides for relevant POW concerns."

"I find it to be morally unacceptable that families are left in the dark as to how their family member died serving their country,when such information is available.

"Much like the religious zealots who traipse in here, I submit that your pearl-clutching is meaningless here."

This is an international issue, as it regards conflict between nations.

"This rationale is asinine, and bears about as much nuance as calling cows dogs because both have four legs and tails. This is not an international issue. It has articulated no issue of international concern. Nation A is entirely unaffected when Nation B withholds information from military families. This is clear in your writing, which mandates the use of identification tags (despite no international utility to such) and the dissemination of information to families.

We have the ability to end this practice of withholding death details, and I wish to use it.

"We have the ability to mandate all persons in the World Assembly swallow three ounces of purple glitter every day, ambassador. Having power does not itself justify use of said power.

I am trying to make this as easy to comply with as possible, ambassador, so please bear with me."

"You've made a proposal that incentivizes treating MIA troopers as criminally absent without leave until such time as they demonstrate an excuse for their absence. You've made one that incentivizes nations to issue a canned excuse that no information on MIA soldiers is safe to share. You've also placed an onus on member states to investigate the conditions surrounding an enemy soldier who is missing in their territory. Congratulations, ambassador, you've done nothing with the 1600 characters you've used."

OOC: Yeah yeah yeah, I know how much you dislike moralistic resolutions, but I like them quite a bit. This one especially. I feel that if it's easy enough to comply with, it can do no more harm than good as international law.

OOC: It can. The WA is better served doing literally nothing than it is passing fluff. It is odd that you'd admit to liking virtue signaling/ Far be it from me if you want to place yourself firmly in the same category as the folks who throw on filthy black leather vests and ride loud motorcycles with oversized flags strapped to them down public roads so they can pat themselves on the backs for it.

[Jedinsto]

"This rationale is asinine, and bears about as much nuance as calling cows dogs because both have four legs and tails. This is not an international issue. It has articulated no issue of international concern. Nation A is entirely unaffected when Nation B withholds information from military families. This is clear in your writing, which mandates the use of identification tags (despite no international utility to such) and the dissemination of information to families.

"You may be right on that point ambassador, but as a wise man once said, 'neglected civil rights is always an international issue,'" Ambassador DuBois says as he gives himself a pat on the back.

"We have the ability to mandate all persons in the World Assembly swallow three ounces of purple glitter every day, ambassador. Having power does not itself justify use of said power.

"I would say that should be judged on a case-by-case basis. The reason that the WA is not going to mandate that all persons in the World Assembly swallow three ounces of glitter per day is that it would be- wait for it- incredibly stupid. When we have the power to secure neglected civil rights to our people, then it is justified to use such power. The World Assembly is the only means we have to secure this form of civil rights.

"You've made a proposal that incentivizes treating MIA troopers as criminally absent without leave until such time as they demonstrate an excuse for their absence. You've made one that incentivizes nations to issue a canned excuse that no information on MIA soldiers is safe to share. You've also placed an onus on member states to investigate the conditions surrounding an enemy soldier who is missing in their territory. Congratulations, ambassador, you've done nothing with the 1600 characters you've used."

"For the first point, how so? For the second point, saying something does not make it so. If the conditions are in fact safe to share the information, then not doing so is non-compliance. Seems simple enough to me. For the third point, some rewording and changes are in order."

OOC: It can. The WA is better served doing literally nothing than it is passing fluff. It is odd that you'd admit to liking virtue signaling/ Far be it from me if you want to place yourself firmly in the same category as the folks who throw on filthy black leather vests and ride loud motorcycles with oversized flags strapped to them down public roads so they can pat themselves on the backs for it.

OOC: I should have been more clear. I meant in this specific case, we are better off with an easy to comply with resolution covering this than no resolution covering this, in my opinion anyways. Also, Rolling Thunder is by no means what you say it is. Unless of course, all forms of protesting are done to pat oneself on the back. Rolling Thunder is a legitimate protest.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You may be right on that point ambassador, but as a wise man once said, 'neglected civil rights is always an international issue,'" Ambassador DuBois says as he gives himself a pat on the back.

"Only if they are essential. This is not essential. This proposal itself makes examples of conditions where said right does not supersede state interests, suggesting this is hardly essential."

"I would say that should be judged on a case-by-case basis. The reason that the WA is not going to mandate that all persons in the World Assembly swallow three ounces of glitter per day is that it would be- wait for it- incredibly stupid. When we have the power to secure neglected civil rights to our people, then it is justified to use such power. The World Assembly is the only means we have to secure this form of civil rights.

"And what you have suggested here is unenforceable and useless. One may call it incredibly stupid."

"For the first point, how so? For the second point, saying something does not make it so. If the conditions are in fact safe to share the information, then not doing so is non-compliance. Seems simple enough to me. For the third point, some rewording and changes are in order."

"For the former, ambassador, treating a soldier as absent without leave is axiomatically different than missing in action, and triggers no reporting requirement. This saves overhead and recordkeeping. It is not always militarily valuable to retain information. It is sufficient to note that Sgt. Schmuckatelli died, for example. It is not generally militarily necessary to note that Sgt. Scmuckatelli died on Hill 32 at 1:11PM on April 43rd unless the sergeant was otherwise special or useful. Keeping that information requires unnecessary information gathering efforts and record keeping. So, too, does this proposal require militarily unnecessary information that states can save money and manpower on by ignoring.

"Secondly, states can argue, and nobody can effectively dispute, that any given information about troop disposition is itself essential to operational security. You are hard pressed to dispute that without information that is itself classified, and are, correspondingly, unable to bear your burden of proof to demonstrate a violation as a private actor. If you reverse that burden, you require the military to argue against itself and provide potentially sensitive information that cannot be retroactively contained. Bypassing this is laughably easy."

OOC: I should have been more clear. I meant in this specific case, we are better off with an easy to comply with resolution covering this than no resolution covering this, in my opinion anyways.

OOC: I meant in this case, too.

Also, Rolling Thunder is by no means what you say it is. Unless of course, all forms of protesting are done to pat oneself on the back. Rolling Thunder is a legitimate protest.

OOC: Which accomplishes little more than flag waving and irritating locals, since the government is exclusively qualified to manage repatriation of POW/MIA individuals. Flag waving and local irritation is about what this draft accomplishes.

[Daarwyrth]

Missing in Action Soldier (herein MIA) as a member of a military organization who has not been confirmed as dead or alive by their own organization following an armed conflict with another military organization,
...
Requires member states to provide all known information on the status and/or details of the deaths of an MIA or POW when all three of the following conditions are met:

1. Such information is available to the inquired member nation and can safely be provided,
2. Such information is not available in the nation for which the MIA or POW served,
3. Such information is requested by the nation for which the MIA or POW served.

OOC: Better, but, still, how's Nation B going to know Nation A has declared Soldier C as MIA?

OOC: I would imagine that there would be backchannel communications going on even if two nations are at war. And if not, then perhaps the resolution could mandate that there is some form of basic or even lower level of communication between the two nations? Some form of channel where the names of MIA soldiers could be placed and the other nation would be required to provide confirmation of that soldier's death if they have it? I mean, even when nations are at war there can be at least the smallest amount of decency in the background? The requirement wouldn't have to demand elaborate details, but just a brief confirmation or statement on the death of the MIAs or POWs in question.

[Jedinsto]

Changing the scope to POWs only. Redraft in progress. Also, me actually using change logs is a thing of the past. Sorry.

[Bananaistan]

"Opposed to wasting precious WA funds on a committee that's only used when both sides agree to use it anyway. Couldn't they just use this building? Observing POW exchanges would be way more interesting than most of the proposals on the go these days."

[Araraukar]

OOC: The new direction with POWs - why should militant terrorists count as POWs when detained?

[Jedinsto]

OOC: Oops, I took that out in the old definition, apparently not the new one. Thx for the catch.

[USG Security Corporation]

A middle aged Latina woman of average proportions, dressed in a modest suit, moved to a provided microphone. She sometimes visited the GA to observe, especially when given a heads up that there were WA resolutions being drafted that might effect her professional field.

"Thank you for hearing me today, esteemed representatives and delegates. My name is Graciella Nacimiento, I am the Director of the Legal Division of the Intexa, the support arm of the USG Security Corporation. In addition, I represent my fellow contractors from all private security, military and other recognized contractors in the industry, especially our fellow partners in the NS PMC Guild.
The reason for my intrusion is that those I represent want to be assured that private military contractors who are serving as ancillary, or auxiliaries of a national defense force, if you will, will be given the same treatment as a POW, and have that guaranteed in your resolution draft, that any other combatant would possess as their right as a POW. I understand the clause about war criminals, but this would be under the assumption that said contractor did not participate in war crimes. In your draft, it states a member of a 'military organization', and there is no mention of that military organization being controlled by a state or national entity, so may I assume that private contractors are then guaranteed those rights?"

Sorry for intruding. I hope I'm doing this right and I'm not sure of the set up of the GA chamber as I don't usually post here. Please inform me via TG if I need to edit or delete.

[Kenmoria]

A middle aged Latina woman of average proportions, dressed in a modest suit, moved to a provided microphone. She sometimes visited the GA to observe, especially when given a heads up that there were WA resolutions being drafted that might effect her professional field.

"Thank you for hearing me today, esteemed representatives and delegates. My name is Graciella Nacimiento, I am the Director of the Legal Division of the Intexa, the support arm of the USG Security Corporation. In addition, I represent my fellow contractors from all private security, military and other recognized contractors in the industry, especially our fellow partners in the NS PMC Guild.
The reason for my intrusion is that those I represent want to be assured that private military contractors who are serving as ancillary, or auxiliaries of a national defense force, if you will, will be given the same treatment as a POW, and have that guaranteed in your resolution draft, that any other combatant would possess as their right as a POW. I understand the clause about war criminals, but this would be under the assumption that said contractor did not participate in war crimes. In your draft, it states a member of a 'military organization', and there is no mention of that military organization being controlled by a state or national entity, so may I assume that private contractors are then guaranteed those rights?"

Sorry for intruding. I hope I'm doing this right and I'm not sure of the set up of the GA chamber as I don't usually post here. Please inform me via TG if I need to edit or delete.

“You are correct, spokesperson. This proposal does not make any distinction between those employed in the armed forces of member states or those employed in the armed forces of any nongovernmental entities under the jurisdiction of member states, which is rather good considering how much of Kenmoria’s military activities are done by contracted corporations.”

(OOC: You did very well; this is a well-written post. There’s not much of a strict structure here, just freeform roleplay between ambassadors.)

[Trellania]

Dame Allania Trueblood walks in, carrying her normal pile of scrolls and accompanied by a very, very confused waitress from the bar.

"Wait, wasn't this the way to..." the waitress begins.

"You get used to it," Dame Allania replies, stopping to look over the proposal.

The knight frowns, sets the pile on a nearby table, pulls out a particular scroll, and opens it. Anyone who looks over her shoulder can see the scroll is a copy of WA #136. She then sighs, rolls the scroll back up, and turns to those here.

"While my nation would love to support this, I am forced to say I cannot because it conflicts with existing World Assembly legislation. WA #136 Convention On Wartime Deceased already has covered this topic, though it does not do so as strongly as I would prefer."

[Honeydewistania]

Seeking to end the withholding of the death details of prisoners of war (POWs), and to establish a means of mediating prisoner exchanges,

why

[Jedinsto]

A middle aged Latina woman of average proportions, dressed in a modest suit, moved to a provided microphone. She sometimes visited the GA to observe, especially when given a heads up that there were WA resolutions being drafted that might effect her professional field.

"Thank you for hearing me today, esteemed representatives and delegates. My name is Graciella Nacimiento, I am the Director of the Legal Division of the Intexa, the support arm of the USG Security Corporation. In addition, I represent my fellow contractors from all private security, military and other recognized contractors in the industry, especially our fellow partners in the NS PMC Guild.
The reason for my intrusion is that those I represent want to be assured that private military contractors who are serving as ancillary, or auxiliaries of a national defense force, if you will, will be given the same treatment as a POW, and have that guaranteed in your resolution draft, that any other combatant would possess as their right as a POW. I understand the clause about war criminals, but this would be under the assumption that said contractor did not participate in war crimes. In your draft, it states a member of a 'military organization', and there is no mention of that military organization being controlled by a state or national entity, so may I assume that private contractors are then guaranteed those rights?"

"Thank you for pointing this out ambassador. It is intended that private military organizations such as rebellions be included in this resolution. I have now included in the definition that war criminals are not guaranteed the rights of POWs under this resolution."

Dame Allania Trueblood walks in, carrying her normal pile of scrolls and accompanied by a very, very confused waitress from the bar.

"Wait, wasn't this the way to..." the waitress begins.

"You get used to it," Dame Allania replies, stopping to look over the proposal.

The knight frowns, sets the pile on a nearby table, pulls out a particular scroll, and opens it. Anyone who looks over her shoulder can see the scroll is a copy of WA #136. She then sighs, rolls the scroll back up, and turns to those here.

"While my nation would love to support this, I am forced to say I cannot because it conflicts with existing World Assembly legislation. WA #136 Convention On Wartime Deceased already has covered this topic, though it does not do so as strongly as I would prefer."

"Wrong."

OOC: My resolution does not include anything relating to proper burial, repatriation, or prohibiting desecration. There is no conflict here with that resolution, I checked to make sure several times before even posting this draft.

why

Short answer- Because.
Longer answer- a) so families can have closure as to what happened to their family members, and the nations that do bad things to their POWs can't hide their atrocities and b) because without real means of doing so, how can you guarantee that your troops are not about to be shit on upon showing up for the exchange?

[Trellania]

"Wrong."

OOC: My resolution does not include anything relating to proper burial, repatriation, or prohibiting desecration. There is no conflict here with that resolution, I checked to make sure several times before even posting this draft.

Dame Allania raises an eyebrow, unrolls the scroll, and looks at it. "I shall read aloud from the section in question. 'RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible.'" She then rolls up the scroll. "I fail to see how this, which mandates, does not conflict with that one, which only recommends."

OOC: Second-to-last line of text in the resolution in question actually does address repatriation of the deceased. Why it does so with such weak language, I do not know. But it's still there.

[Jedinsto]

"Wrong."

OOC: My resolution does not include anything relating to proper burial, repatriation, or prohibiting desecration. There is no conflict here with that resolution, I checked to make sure several times before even posting this draft.

Dame Allania raises an eyebrow, unrolls the scroll, and looks at it. "I shall read aloud from the section in question. 'RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible.'" She then rolls up the scroll. "I fail to see how this, which mandates, does not conflict with that one, which only recommends."

OOC: Second-to-last line of text in the resolution in question actually does address repatriation of the deceased. Why it does so with such weak language, I do not know. But it's still there.

"You misunderstand me. Where does my proposal cover repatriation?"
OOC: I know that convention of wartime deceased has repatriation, I'm saying that mine doesn't, and therefore there is no conflict.

Edit: OOC: I added "living" into the definition of POW exchanges for clarification.

[Honeydewistania]

Short answer- Because.
Longer answer- a) so families can have closure as to what happened to their family members, and the nations that do bad things to their POWs can't hide their atrocities and b) because without real means of doing so, how can you guarantee that your troops are not about to be shit on upon showing up for the exchange?

If a nation is committing atrocities, they are most likely already violating WA law, so I don’t think they’d care much about adhering to his one, especially if it would help them.

Also, if you have agreed to meet with another party to exchange POWs, it should be your responsibility to ensure that all potential risks are handled. I don’t see how that’s the WA’s business at all.

[Jedinsto]

Short answer- Because.
Longer answer- a) so families can have closure as to what happened to their family members, and the nations that do bad things to their POWs can't hide their atrocities and b) because without real means of doing so, how can you guarantee that your troops are not about to be shit on upon showing up for the exchange?

If a nation is committing atrocities, they are most likely already violating WA law, so I don’t think they’d care much about adhering to his one, especially if it would help them.

Also, if you have agreed to meet with another party to exchange POWs, it should be your responsibility to ensure that all potential risks are handled. I don’t see how that’s the WA’s business at all.

For the first part, you're probably right about that. How about if they're not violating WA law? And, for the second part I disagree. Member nations put forth their money and stuff collectively and then can use this committee for mutual benefit and such when they need it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This suffers from similar lack of focus as the last attempt, ambassador. I think a better approach is ensuring POW reporting to the WA, authorizing the WA to engage in various inspections of POW conditions, and barring retention of POWs following cessation of hostilities to the extent that the POW Accord does not make such accommodations. Mediation for exchanges is valuable, but not when parties have a military incentive not to negotiate."

[Trellania]

Dame Allania raises an eyebrow, unrolls the scroll, and looks at it. "I shall read aloud from the section in question. 'RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible.'" She then rolls up the scroll. "I fail to see how this, which mandates, does not conflict with that one, which only recommends."

OOC: Second-to-last line of text in the resolution in question actually does address repatriation of the deceased. Why it does so with such weak language, I do not know. But it's still there.

"You misunderstand me. Where does my proposal cover repatriation?"
OOC: I know that convention of wartime deceased has repatriation, I'm saying that mine doesn't, and therefore there is no conflict.

Edit: OOC: I added "living" into the definition of POW exchanges for clarification.

"Repatriation is not possible without notifying the nation they would be repatriated to of the deaths. At least, if you showed up at the borders of Trellania with a bunch of our dead without prior notice, we would assume it a declaration or act of war. I am certain most nations would react the same way.

"A such, notifying a nation of any prisoners of war who died would logically be part of the appropriate measures taken in relation to repatriation. I doubt a nation would go to the trouble of notifying another of deaths suffered by prisoners of war unless that nation intends to attempt repatriation at some point in the future or at least to notify if repatriation is even possible. Any nation that would not notify of prisoner of war deaths would very likely not attempt repatriation at all.

"Thus requiring notification of prisoner of war deaths itself treads into the area of appropriate measures for repatriating the deceased."

Dame Allania then sighs. "Frankly, I hope we can revisit that other resolution, repeal it, and rework it to better suit the intended goal."

OOC: The gist of the issue is that other resolution has a very vague clause that has its coverage existing based entirely on interpretation, and in turn comes down to what each person assumes a reasonable nation would interpret it as. Which can include notification of POW deaths.

[Jedinsto]

"This suffers from similar lack of focus as the last attempt, ambassador. I think a better approach is ensuring POW reporting to the WA, authorizing the WA to engage in various inspections of POW conditions, and barring retention of POWs following cessation of hostilities to the extent that the POW Accord does not make such accommodations. Mediation for exchanges is valuable, but not when parties have a military incentive not to negotiate."

"These suggestions are being considered and will certainly be included in some form."