NS Geneva Conventions - The Panoli Accords (Discussion)

[Neu Engollon]

This thread is for discussing the creation of civilized conventions for nations to conduct themselves, and have some expectation of others to follow. While the WA covers some of that, they don't delve into very specific wartime scenarios and try to avoid military related discussions, or regulating anything to do with a nation's conduct of conflict.

This thread is not for you to post your edgy hot take. If you don't like the idea, simply don't participate. No commentary needed that isn't constructive to the discussion. If you don't RP your nation as biding by any civilized conventions, this isn't the thread for you.

It came up in discussion on a NS related Discord server that nothing properly exists in NS like the RL Geneva Conventions. I'd like to change that. Allanea created the Amistad Declaration, in regards to slavery, and I think that is a model blueprint for how this could be accepted into the NS RP community. I didn't think this completely belonged in the WA forum, as it's more IC RP and not GP.

What is needed is someone who is good at writing resolutions, particularly probably from the player community that writes resolutions for the General Assembly. I am just not good at writing that type of legalese on my own, so I'm looking for dedicated volunteers.

From the rest of the RP community, we need ideas on what points should be covered - should it just be a line for line copy of the Geneva Conventions with some minor changes, or should we strive to create something completely organic and different?
Should there be different versions for different tech levels?
All valid things to think about and discuss.

IC wise, I don't mind hosting, but ironically, my capital is called Geneva. I might move the hosting site of such an IC convention to another city in my nation, just to avoid confusion with the RL Geneva Conventions. This is if we even bother to do a whole thread, or just need an IC placeholder location for the signing of the convention documents.

I will work on formatting later, but just wanted to get the discussion rolling for now.
So, with all that in mind, what say you NS RP community?

[Neu Engollon]

Reserved.

[Neu Engollon]

Reserved.

[Trad Bosnia]

I think it's important for these conventions to distinguish between honest and criminal combatants.
I think uniformed soldiers of apolitical units should be one example of legitimate combatants along with nat lib militias provided that they:
- Carry arms openly and do not impersonate civilians,

- Conduct themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of war recognised amongst civilised nations and

- are commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates.

[Neu Engollon]

I think it's important for these conventions to distinguish between honest and criminal combatants.
I think uniformed soldiers of apolitical units should be one example of legitimate combatants along with nat lib militias provided that they:
- Carry arms openly and do not impersonate civilians,

- Conduct themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of war recognised amongst civilised nations and

- are commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates.

So, basically non-nation state actor combatants? Political, religious, or separatist groups, but also maybe encompassing mercenaries/private contractors?

[Trad Bosnia]

I think it's important for these conventions to distinguish between honest and criminal combatants.
I think uniformed soldiers of apolitical units should be one example of legitimate combatants along with nat lib militias provided that they:
- Carry arms openly and do not impersonate civilians,

- Conduct themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of war recognised amongst civilised nations and

- are commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates.

So, basically non-nation state actor combatants? Political, religious, or separatist groups, but also maybe encompassing mercenaries/private contractors?

I don't think that's what I mean because mercenaries and partisan who
- Carry arms openly and do not impersonate civilians,

- Conduct themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of war recognised amongst civilised nations and
and
- are commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates
would be able to be protected.
I think the ANC and certain Irish resistance groups during the Easter Rising would meet this criteria as would, I think, certain private military contractors.

[Neu Engollon]

So, basically non-nation state actor combatants? Political, religious, or separatist groups, but also maybe encompassing mercenaries/private contractors?

I don't think that's what I mean because mercenaries and partisan who
- Carry arms openly and do not impersonate civilians,

- Conduct themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of war recognised amongst civilised nations and
and
- are commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates
would be able to be protected.
I think the ANC and certain Irish resistance groups during the Easter Rising would meet this criteria as would, I think, certain private military contractors.

I think we're saying the same thing. The ANC was political and the Irish resistance was separatist. They wanted Ireland separate from the United Kingdom.

[Trad Bosnia]

I don't think that's what I mean because mercenaries and partisan who
- Carry arms openly and do not impersonate civilians,

- Conduct themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of war recognised amongst civilised nations and
and
- are commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates
would be able to be protected.
I think the ANC and certain Irish resistance groups during the Easter Rising would meet this criteria as would, I think, certain private military contractors.

I think we're saying the same thing. The ANC was political and the Irish resistance was separatist. They wanted Ireland separate from the United Kingdom.

Yes, political, separatist and religious groups that meet the criteria would qualify for POW status as well as mercenaries and PMCs.

Individuals or leaderless groups wouldn't qualify for POW status nor would terrorist groups deliberately targeting civilians or posing as them.
Similar a uniformed PMC that respect the laws of war would qualify.

[Saksoni]

No chemical/ biological weapons, nothing that causes slow and painfull death, no flamethrowers or any hooks on knifes.
Until i find out about some try to bypass these,i can add some.

[Diarcesia]

From the rest of the RP community, we need ideas on what points should be covered - should it just be a line for line copy of the Geneva Conventions with some minor changes, or should we strive to create something completely organic and different

Something organic works best, even if the end result is something very similar to the RL Geneva Conventions.

Edit: Perhaps using the currently-enfored WA resolutions is a good basis for the declaration?

IC wise, I don't mind hosting, but ironically, my capital is called Geneva. I might move the hosting site of such an IC convention to another city in my nation, just to avoid confusion with the RL Geneva Conventions. This is if we even bother to do a whole thread, or just need an IC placeholder location for the signing of the convention documents.

I don't mind hosting my capital city of Arcesius as well, but if I nominate a place to hold a convention, it would be some "lore-only" (i.e. controlled by no player) place that contains a "portal to the multiverse" so all tech levels are accommodated. Placeholder name: Island in the Sea of Time

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Generally in our experiance, mercenaries employed on the behalf of a foreign nation-state often got the same protections or lack therof. Oftentimes submitting to the client-state's military justice system. Although there were instances where nations would make an international incident out of such proceedings in an effort to disgrace a unit. Although a bit of a word of advice, is not to bring a sack full of dead babies into a courtroom, and then dramatically slam it down on the bench hard enough to break it... it seldom helps your case; especially when there's proof and testimony you ordered the shots fired that killed them.

That was a fun one. (note, link is to a different court-case)

But on another subject, threatening the use of world-ending weapons of mass destruction willy-nilly is often a diplomatic faux-pas. But if there are to be laws regarding this, then surely there must be an executive arm to enforce this upon a non-compliant state. Which means someone will need to go in there and disable their hand, or enact further punitive measures.

Because, y'know... toothless laws are kinda useless.

[Diarcesia]

there must be an executive arm to enforce this

How can this enforcement arm differentiate itself from the usual four-letter alliances that claims to profess the virtues of the alt-Geneva Conventions?

Edit: Just answered my own question, but I still want to know your thoughts.

[Neu Engollon]

But on another subject, threatening the use of world-ending weapons of mass destruction willy-nilly is often a diplomatic faux-pas. But if there are to be laws regarding this, then surely there must be an executive arm to enforce this upon a non-compliant state. Which means someone will need to go in there and disable their hand, or enact further punitive measures.

Because, y'know... toothless laws are kinda useless.

There would never be any one body that could enforce this, and having any 'superpower' kind of force in any tech level that would automatically bring the hammer down is just kind of silly and brings its own set of problems.

Really, the best sanctions would be just like in RL, economic sanctions collectively brought by the signatories of any Convention articles. Even then, you would probably have some signatories skirting around such sanctions for their own best economic interests. Ultimately, consequences would be done in the name of human decency and morality, and any opposed would be deemed to be uncivilized and out of step with the world community.

This is a RP instrument, in the end. No edgy RPing player is going to abide by them, obviously, so it's not really meant to try to bring any justice to them, as they wouldn't give a fuck, anyway.

[Neu Engollon]

Edit: Perhaps using the currently-enforced WA resolutions is a good basis for the declaration?

I have thought about that. They are spotty though, and don't cover everything that is covered in the RL Geneva Conventions. But it doesn't hurt to give them reference as a legal basis.

I don't mind hosting my capital city of Arcesius as well, but if I nominate a place to hold a convention, it would be some "lore-only" (i.e. controlled by no player) place that contains a "portal to the multiverse" so all tech levels are accommodated. Placeholder name: Island in the Sea of Time

The more I think about it, the more I probably want the hosting of signatories to be in a city of my own choosing, in my own nation. I am kind of doing the heavy lifting and organizing for this, after all, so it's kind of fair. Likely, it would be in Panoli, my main sea port and cosmopolitan hub.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

How can this enforcement arm differentiate itself from the usual four-letter alliances that claims to profess the virtues of the alt-Geneva Conventions?

Edit: Just answered my own question, but I still want to know your thoughts.

Usually regional alliances are sufficient, but sometimes it can be (and sadly often must be) solved unilaterally.

But on another subject, threatening the use of world-ending weapons of mass destruction willy-nilly is often a diplomatic faux-pas. But if there are to be laws regarding this, then surely there must be an executive arm to enforce this upon a non-compliant state. Which means someone will need to go in there and disable their hand, or enact further punitive measures.

Because, y'know... toothless laws are kinda useless.

There would never be any one body that could enforce this, and having any 'superpower' kind of force in any tech level that would automatically bring the hammer down is just kind of silly and brings its own set of problems.

Really, the best sanctions would be just like in RL, economic sanctions collectively brought by the signatories of any Convention articles. Even then, you would probably have some signatories skirting around such sanctions for their own best economic interests. Ultimately, consequences would be done in the name of human decency and morality, and any opposed would be deemed to be uncivilized and out of step with the world community.

This is a RP instrument, in the end. No edgy RPing player is going to abide by them, obviously, so it's not really meant to try to bring any justice to them, as they wouldn't give a fuck, anyway.

The fun part is it's actually easier to cut an edgelord on their own sharpness than it looks. Since usually their entire strategy is reliant on being so toxicly edgy rather than sound reasoning, the only hard part is finding someone willing to get their hands a little dirty.

Been there, done that, even named it warplan magenta.
Full thread? Full thread. One of the few times I actually released multiple divisions on a single op.

Ultimately, it pretty much means developing a force dedicated to castrating nations. Either as part of a multinational alliance, or unilaterally if necessary to ensure your own survival.
-They've gotten pretty good at it

[Trad Bosnia]

Are these conventions intended to cover enlistment and deployment ages?

I think it should be at least15 to enlist in any military service at all and at least16.5 to deployed as an infantryman,

[Neu Engollon]

-snip-

It's a whole other discussion to form any kind of enforcement group to bring military justice to those who break the Convention. I think also it would be bringing a lot of 4th wall breaking, which those who I think would be interested in this would not want to be party to. That's about creating conflict RP threads, and agreeing to the level and quality of play. Some insist on one liner actions, others want story and depth to their RPs. Coming to a consensus on that alone is agonizing. I know from experience as I tried to help develop the NSIPF, a peacekeeping force that would try to enforce the following of international protocol. It got very messy.

I think legal and economic sanctions are the best way. Legally, it would require something akin to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, using a RL equivalent. That means having a player willing to submit to the fact that they would have their leaders/war criminals actually captured and brought to justice. That alone is a tall feat. Meaning that really just leaves economic sanctions as the most viable way of enforcement.

I am seeing the Conventions as more of a reference in RP, rather than a launching point for intervention. Instead of having to decide whether it's WA, or Geneva Conventions that a nation or hostile party is in violation of, we actually have an organizational document that outlines agreed upon conventions.

Are these conventions intended to cover enlistment and deployment ages?

I think it should be at least15 to enlist in any military service at all and at least16.5 to deployed as an infantryman,

I hadn't thought about it, but there is RL precedent. Both through the UN, and through the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. There is a Protocol On Children in Armed Conflict that was created through UN auspices. No reason such an article could not be included.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Are those non-signatory are going to be still bound by the treaty? I am asking because when this will be eventually signed we will automatically become violators because IC-wise do not believe in stuff like “reducing civilian casualties”

[New Visayan Islands]

Are those non-signatory are going to be still bound by the treaty? I am asking because when this will be eventually signed we will automatically become violators because IC-wise do not believe in stuff like “reducing civilian casualties”

IIRC, IRL conventions are only binding when all parties involved are parties to the same; when one party is not a signatory to a wartime convention the other is technically under no obligation to abide by the same re a conflict involving both parties unless the convention has passed into the body of customary international law, as is the case with the Geneva Conventions if Doctors Without Borders is any indication.

[Estado Novo Portugues]

Are those non-signatory are going to be still bound by the treaty? I am asking because when this will be eventually signed we will automatically become violators because IC-wise do not believe in stuff like “reducing civilian casualties”

No.

1) Nobody can force you to RP with them or recognize their IC lore. This goes for organizations too.

2) There isn't one single canonical IC universe or timeline on NS. Everybody's is different, so while some players might choose to incorporate the treaty into their canon, others might not.

3) There are RL examples to back this up, such as the United States withdrawing from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and refusing to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In both cases, the USA is not bound to abide by those treaties.

[Neu Engollon]

I agree with everything said, so there’s not too much more that needs to be said on it.

I’ll throw this on at the risk of redundancy:
In the very remote possibility that you, Laka Strolistandiler, or someone like minded, are involved in a RP in which another player IC brings up this Accord/Convention, your leader character would likely say, “Well, we don’t care.” And that should be the end of it.

On another note, still looking for a volunteer willing to write up a framework in legal bureaucracese. Again, this would be someone with experience in drafting General Assembly proposals. I may seek permission to request help in that forum.

[Neu Engollon]

Alright, so…

We have some points to cover:
1. POWs - who is covered as a legitimate protected combatant?
- How are captured combatants treated? What can they and can they not be made to do?
- Along with that, is interrogation acceptable? Torture obviously would not be. No cruel or degrading treatment.
- Using civilians or military personnel as hostages should be forbidden

2. How old must a proper combatant be for an armed group or national force in order to not be in violation of international law? What is the youngest age allowed for conscription or volunteers.

3. Treatment of civilians during a conflict, or in a conflict zone.
- special protection for civilians and military personnel alike who treat wounded combatants

4. Recognition of humanitarian agencies that tend to civilians, wounded combatants, and prisoners

5. Compulsion to treat wounded, sick, and shipwrecked from all combatant parties

6. Respect for neutral parties during wartime. Rule against violating neutrality of those parties/nations, unless they themselves have invalidated their own neutrality (What constitutes such an invalidation?)

7. Protection of unarmed clergy, and religious figures from any harm from any side. This includes chaplains in military uniform.

8. Special protected humanitarian status for hospitals (including field hospitals and aid stations), ambulances and wounded transport, hospital vessels at sea, hospital aircraft.
This is assuming that they are not used for war purposes and remain unarmed. When a nation arms any facility or transport, they invalidate the protection. Agreed upon symbol for protective status - Red cross?

9. Equal protection of civilian auxiliaries, such as those working for government agencies or military services, merchant marine, civilian air crew and pilots in logistical roles, etc.

10. Need to define combatants not employed or under the supervision of national armed forces. Giving equal status to all combatants who take up arms against an enemy and properly identify themselves as such.

11. Exemption from criminal or civil trials for captured combatants who have only been captured in the process of taking up arms against an enemy. This status would be revoked for combatants who have been in violation of international law or committed horrific or unwarranted crimes against civilians or other captured enemy personnel under their care. Better definition and wording is needed here, obviously. What constitutes a proper court and trial proceedings for civilians and military personnel suspected of crimes?

12. How to treat spies and saboteurs, and how to define them?

13. No collective treatment for individuals who have done nothing more than be associated with another violating human rights and the Conventions/Accords.

14. Further definition of deportation, evacuation and prisoner transfers and the proper procedures for these operations.

15. The protection of religious sites and historic landmarks from desecration and destruction, provided they were not being used for military purposes by another combatant side.

16. Agreed upon sanctions and measures to be taken upon combatant parties in clear violation of the Accords. Enforcement, in other words. What is possible and practical?

There may be others to add, some to combine, and some that are irrelevant to NS and need to be removed. This is what I came up with based on these discussions and research into the RL Geneva Conventions. Thoughts?

Also, a reminder if you did not read the OP: This is not an opportunity to share your hot takes about how ruthless and edgy you are and how you won't abide by conventions or care what others think about you. This is not the thread for you. You don't agree with making civilized agreements, then don't participate. Simple as that.

[Trad Bosnia]

- How are captured combatants treated?:

With the same food and courtesies and similar accommodation (similar rather than the same because it can be more secure) as one's own soldiers What can they and can they not be made to do?:
Probably shouldn't be forced to further the war effort against their country or do work that would be considered degrading for a member of the captors' military of the same rank.

- Along with that, is interrogation acceptable?:
I think they should only be compelled to reveal their name, rank, number, date of birth, religion (with no punishments based on the answer) and medical information necessary to look after them.
Torture obviously would not be. No cruel or degrading treatment.
- Using civilians or military personnel as hostages should be forbidden

2. How old must a proper combatant be for an armed group or national force in order to not be in violation of international law?:
I think fifteen and a half ("and a half" to allow for length of training). I think they could be useful in some naval roles, Jack Cornwell VC was able to survive for a long time and kill enemies before he valiantly died.

What is the youngest age allowed for conscription or volunteers?: 15 to volunteer, 17 (?) or 18 to be conscripted.

Agreed upon symbol for protective status - Red cross?: I think Red Crosses and Red Crescents should both be considered ensigns of protected status.

9. Equal protection of civilian auxiliaries, such as those working for government agencies or military services, merchant marine, civilian air crew and pilots in logistical roles, etc.:
Yes but how would rank be established for civilian aircrew?


12. How to treat spies and saboteurs, and how to define them?:
I don't know about saboteurs but I think spies who are motivated by serving their country, acted during a war against the enemy and didn't commit war crimes should have at least the same protections as the lowest ranked POW.


16. Agreed upon sanctions and measures to be taken upon combatant parties in clear violation of the Accords. Enforcement, in other words. What is possible and practical?:
I think powers that break the accord should have their officers removed from most of it's protections.

[New Visayan Islands]

2. How old must a proper combatant be for an armed group or national force in order to not be in violation of international law? What is the youngest age allowed for conscription or volunteers.

- Hard floor of 15 for volunteer service, 18 for conscription; 15-18 limited to non-combat service.

7. Protection of unarmed clergy, and religious figures from any harm from any side. This includes chaplains in military uniform.

- IIRC, chaplains and medics are afforded similar, if not identical, protections.

8. Special protected humanitarian status for hospitals (including field hospitals and aid stations), ambulances and wounded transport, hospital vessels at sea, hospital aircraft.
This is assuming that they are not used for war purposes and remain unarmed. When a nation arms any facility or transport, they invalidate the protection. Agreed upon symbol for protective status - Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal. Similar symbols like the Red Magen David could also be included.

11. Exemption from criminal or civil trials for captured combatants who have only been captured in the process of taking up arms against an enemy. This status would be revoked for combatants who have been in violation of international law or committed horrific or unwarranted crimes against civilians or other captured enemy personnel under their care. Better definition and wording is needed here, obviously. What constitutes a proper court and trial proceedings for civilians and military personnel suspected of crimes?

- Using Visayan examples: The VICC (Visayan International Criminal Code) provides for the establishment of special courts to judge violators of established international law. This court is empowered to prosecute such violations up to and including violations that are considered capital offenses. In a civil context, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over such cases, in the armed forces, that’s a court-martial.

12. How to treat spies and saboteurs, and how to define them?

- Kinda iffy, because IIRC, spies and saboteurs could be summarily executed.

15. The protection of religious sites and historic landmarks from desecration and destruction, provided they were not being used for military purposes by another combatant side.

- So, Blue Shield?

16. Agreed upon sanctions and measures to be taken upon combatant parties in clear violation of the Accords. Enforcement, in other words. What is possible and practical?

- Going back to my example: minimum sentence of 20-40 years, egregious cases are capital offenses.

[Trad Bosnia]

2. How old must a proper combatant be for an armed group or national force in order to not be in violation of international law? What is the youngest age allowed for conscription or volunteers.

- Hard floor of 15 for volunteer service, 18 for conscription; 15-18 limited to non-combat service.

7. Protection of unarmed clergy, and religious figures from any harm from any side. This includes chaplains in military uniform.

- IIRC, chaplains and medics are afforded similar, if not identical, protections.

8. Special protected humanitarian status for hospitals (including field hospitals and aid stations), ambulances and wounded transport, hospital vessels at sea, hospital aircraft.
This is assuming that they are not used for war purposes and remain unarmed. When a nation arms any facility or transport, they invalidate the protection. Agreed upon symbol for protective status - Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal. Similar symbols like the Red Magen David could also be included.

11. Exemption from criminal or civil trials for captured combatants who have only been captured in the process of taking up arms against an enemy. This status would be revoked for combatants who have been in violation of international law or committed horrific or unwarranted crimes against civilians or other captured enemy personnel under their care. Better definition and wording is needed here, obviously. What constitutes a proper court and trial proceedings for civilians and military personnel suspected of crimes?

- Using Visayan examples: The VICC (Visayan International Criminal Code) provides for the establishment of special courts to judge violators of established international law. This court is empowered to prosecute such violations up to and including violations that are considered capital offenses. In a civil context, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over such cases, in the armed forces, that’s a court-martial.

12. How to treat spies and saboteurs, and how to define them?

- Kinda iffy, because IIRC, spies and saboteurs could be summarily executed.

15. The protection of religious sites and historic landmarks from desecration and destruction, provided they were not being used for military purposes by another combatant side.

- So, Blue Shield?

16. Agreed upon sanctions and measures to be taken upon combatant parties in clear violation of the Accords. Enforcement, in other words. What is possible and practical?

- Going back to my example: minimum sentence of 20-40 years, egregious cases are capital offenses.

What if a country allows the 15-17 year old volunteers to vote and allows a prince to inherit the throne under eighteen?

Should they still be excluded from combat?