[PASSED] Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service

[Goobergunchia]

Why does this not address conscription into non-combative roles?

That would be far more controversial, and including it here would likely result in opposition. I would rather not risk no protections whatsoever being created. It is therefore preferable to have this address only conscription into combative roles, and leave it up to future resolutions to address conscription into non-combative roles.

I would also strongly discourage opposing this because it does not address non-combative military service. Such a position will not result in non-combative military service being addressed; but rather, no forms of conscientious objection being addressed. The scope of this proposal is, therefore, limited to combative military service.

Believing that individuals have the right not to be forced to participate in combative roles in an armed conflict despite holding conscientious, moral, or religious objections against such participation,

Further noting that conscripted conscientious objectors not only are likely to be demoralised themselves, but also demoralise the rest of the armed force in which they are conscripts, thus providing little to no advantage as soldiers,

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. No member nation may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein said individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.
   
   
2. Such an objection may only be voided by the individual in question. Further, no person may be penalised for expressing, holding, or failing to void, such an objection.
   
   
3. This resolution does not prohibit member nations from enforcing forced military service in compliance with Sections 1 and 2. Yet, regardless of the other provisions of this resolution, the World Assembly shall maintain the power to further restrict forced military service by resolution.

Associated repeal.

[Starman of Stardust]

Believing that, barring exceptionally compelling circumstances, persons should not be forced to participate in an armed conflict despite holding conscientious, moral, or religious objections against such participation,

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. No member nation may coerce or otherwise compel any individual to serve in a combative role in an armed conflict, where said individual has expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.
   
   
   1. Such an objection may only be voided by the individual in question. No person may be penalised for expressing, holding, or failing to void, such an objection.
      
      
   2. This resolution shall not prohibit a member nation from requiring an individual who has expressed such an objection to serve in a combative role solely to defend said nation from armed attack by another nation or group.
   
   
2. This resolution should not be interpreted as standing in the way of future restrictions on forced military service.

[Untecna]

Perhaps this is an issue on my part, but... 1 and 2 seem like contradictions of one another.

[Comfed]

No preamble... why?

Your draft doesn't allow for people who conscientiously object to assisting a war effort in any capacity to escape conscription into any military role.

Perhaps this is an issue on my part, but... 1 and 2 seem like contradictions of one another.

They're not. Section 2 explicitly establishes a situation in which section 1 doesn't apply.

[The Ice States]

No preamble... why?

Your draft doesn't allow for people who conscientiously object to assisting a war effort in any capacity to escape conscription into any military role.

Thanks for the feedback. I have added a preamble. Conscription into any military role is not in the scope of this, which is to replace GA #132 which only restricts conscription of objectors into active military deployment.

[Heidgaudr]

"I'm still unconvinced we should explicitly permit conscripting objectors in wars of defense. It seems to me a self-correcting behavior where many people who would object to wars of aggression would be willing to defend their nation. And the ones who would still object - well, I'm not sure I'd want to be handing them guns and counting on them to do their duty."

[Starman of Stardust]

"I'm still unconvinced we should explicitly permit conscripting objectors in wars of defense. It seems to me a self-correcting behavior where many people who would object to wars of aggression would be willing to defend their nation. And the ones who would still object - well, I'm not sure I'd want to be handing them guns and counting on them to do their duty."

"We have few reservations with either approach, so done."

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Although we’re not a member, wouldn’t it be reasonable to allow the connies to at least be conscripted in non-combatant duties, provided that they’ll not be forced to use arms for self-defense or defense of their patients? For example, as stretcher-bearers, orderlies or any other MOS like that?

Also shouldn’t there be a definition of “combative role”?

[Starman of Stardust]

Although we’re not a member, wouldn’t it be reasonable to allow the connies to at least be conscripted in non-combatant duties, provided that they’ll not be forced to use arms for self-defense or defense of their patients? For example, as stretcher-bearers, orderlies or any other MOS like that?

Also shouldn’t there be a definition of “combative role”?

"This does not affect the legality of conscripting objectors into duties which are not 'combative roles'. We have added a definition of a 'combative role'."

[Starman of Stardust]

Bump.

[Simone Republic]

To quote Heidgaudr on the other thread:



Same question I am asking Tinfect:

What happens if the objector's town has been blown to pieces, all his family members raped, tortured and killed, and the objector's neighbours are fighting invaders with machine guns? Is it acceptable for the objector to sit at home and play Candy Crush Saga?

While my answer would be "yes", even though I dislike the framing of your question, this isn't really relevant to the repeal, whose arguments are unrelated to the conscription of objectors to self-defense. I have, however, edited the repeal text to make this even more explicit in the first argument.

As I mentioned on the repeal thread, I am philosophically uncomfortable with the idea of giving objectors carte blanche the right not to fight, even though I agree that they are probably not going to be brave or courageous fighters anyway (as I think Tinfect pointed out on that other thread.)

[The Ice States]

Bumping again.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[The Ice States]

Due to the lack of comments, this will be submitted once the repeal passes depending on the progress of this ban!

[The North Polish Union]

No member nation may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to serve in any role in an armed conflict where said individual has expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role. The sole exception to this mandate shall be if said individual would not be required, as part of that role, to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to other individuals.

"This would still be unacceptable to members of most pacifist groups (OOC: groups like the Mennonites in the real world). Member states would be allowed to compel individuals to, for example, work in a munitions factory despite their having an objection to fulfilling such an alternative service requirement on the grounds that munitions manufacture is not 'attempt[ing] to directly cause physical harm or injury to other individuals.' A member of such pacifist groups would find participation in such an arrangement profoundly objectionable."

[Starman of Stardust]

No member nation may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to serve in any role in an armed conflict where said individual has expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role. The sole exception to this mandate shall be if said individual would not be required, as part of that role, to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to other individuals.

"This would still be unacceptable to members of most pacifist groups (OOC: groups like the Mennonites in the real world). Member states would be allowed to compel individuals to, for example, work in a munitions factory despite their having an objection to fulfilling such an alternative service requirement on the grounds that munitions manufacture is not 'attempt[ing] to directly cause physical harm or injury to other individuals.' A member of such pacifist groups would find participation in such an arrangement profoundly objectionable."

"While we agree with this sentiment, and that this should be prohibited, we do not wish to include it in this resolution, as some more warlike nations may oppose it if they are prohibited from conscripting conscientious objectors in any form, thus preventing any sort of protections from being enacted. We therefore prefer to leave that up to another resolution, and have this resolution only address conscription into combative roles."

[The North Polish Union]

"This would still be unacceptable to members of most pacifist groups (OOC: groups like the Mennonites in the real world). Member states would be allowed to compel individuals to, for example, work in a munitions factory despite their having an objection to fulfilling such an alternative service requirement on the grounds that munitions manufacture is not 'attempt[ing] to directly cause physical harm or injury to other individuals.' A member of such pacifist groups would find participation in such an arrangement profoundly objectionable."

"While we agree with this sentiment, and that this should be prohibited, we do not wish to include it in this resolution, as some more warlike nations may oppose it if they are prohibited from conscripting conscientious objectors in any form, thus preventing any sort of protections from being enacted. We therefore prefer to leave that up to another resolution, and have this resolution only address conscription into combative roles."

"Our delegation is unwilling to support a resolution that has such an obvious hole, particularly since that hole is intentionally being left open to placate states which wish to engage in wanton militarism."

[Starman of Stardust]

"While we agree with this sentiment, and that this should be prohibited, we do not wish to include it in this resolution, as some more warlike nations may oppose it if they are prohibited from conscripting conscientious objectors in any form, thus preventing any sort of protections from being enacted. We therefore prefer to leave that up to another resolution, and have this resolution only address conscription into combative roles."

"Our delegation is unwilling to support a resolution that has such an obvious hole, particularly since that hole is intentionally being left open to placate states which wish to engage in wanton militarism."

"Would your mission prefer there be that exception -- one which can be closed in another resolution -- or that there be no protections enacted at all?"

[The Ice States]

Bump. With the repeal's imminent passage, I still intend to submit depending on the outcome of Tinfect's proposal.

[Simone Republic]

Actually before I forget, what happens to anyone without sufficient intelligence or mental acuity to be a soldier? Notwithstanding (again) that they are not likely to be good soldiers anyway.

[The Ice States]

Actually before I forget, what happens to anyone without sufficient intelligence or mental acuity to be a soldier? Notwithstanding (again) that they are not likely to be good soldiers anyway.

Not being mentally competent enough to fight is not conscentious objection, and thus outside of this proposal's scope. Section 3 of GA #299 declares that "people who are not legally competent must not be employed in combat".

[Simone Republic]

While my answer would be "yes", even though I dislike the framing of your question, this isn't really relevant to the repeal, whose arguments are unrelated to the conscription of objectors to self-defense. I have, however, edited the repeal text to make this even more explicit in the first argument.

As I mentioned on the repeal thread, I am philosophically uncomfortable with the idea of giving objectors carte blanche the right not to fight, even though I agree that they are probably not going to be brave or courageous fighters anyway (as I think Tinfect pointed out on that other thread.)

I note that the current draft means that "yes, (in an invasion), if the objector's town has been blown to pieces, all his family members raped, tortured and killed, and the objector's neighbours are fighting invaders with machine guns, it is acceptable for the objector to sit at home and play Candy Crush Saga(*)."

Also, yes I expect any prohibition on drafting objectors to non combat roles will likely face strong opposition, from me at least.

(*) insert random game name here. All trademarks acknowledged.

Actually before I forget, what happens to anyone without sufficient intelligence or mental acuity to be a soldier? Notwithstanding (again) that they are not likely to be good soldiers anyway.

Not being mentally competent enough to fight is not conscentious objection, and thus outside of this proposal's scope. Section 3 of GA #299 declares that "people who are not legally competent must not be employed in combat".

Ok.

[Starman of Stardust]

As I mentioned on the repeal thread, I am philosophically uncomfortable with the idea of giving objectors carte blanche the right not to fight, even though I agree that they are probably not going to be brave or courageous fighters anyway (as I think Tinfect pointed out on that other thread.)

I note that the current draft means that "yes, (in an invasion), if the objector's town has been blown to pieces, all his family members raped, tortured and killed, and the objector's neighbours are fighting invaders with machine guns, it is acceptable for the objector to sit at home and play Candy Crush Saga(*)."

Your hypothetical here and its framing are nonsensical. In the same scenario, I see no reason that the objector would be safe just 'sit[ting] at home and play[ing] Candy Crush Saga'; so there would be no rational reason for them to do so while conscientiously objecting in good faith. Even if they did not, it would not be more ethical for them to kill against their moral values.

Edit: I believe Tinfect's hypothetical scenario is more effective as to the need for the protections in this resolution,

You are a civilian, with no military training or desire for such things, you have a life, work, family - dear partners and children, plans for the future, et-cetera, - and one day, your country finds itself at war. Let's say it was the subject of aggression. The war goes poorly, people are dying, cities are being bombed as the military withdraws into them. One day, a pair of Soldiers come to your door; you are handed a rifle and told that you are now a Conscript, and you are to march down the road and face the approaching tanks. What if you refuse? You don't want to die, you have no desire to kill; you, quite understandably, would prefer to get away from this war, with your loved ones intact and safe. That, the Soldiers tell you, would be treason. More than treason, in fact, it would be service of the enemy, and they are under strict orders to kill or capture treasonists and enemy assets; you are at war after all, and wartime is no time for games or pretensions of rights and decency. And of course, your family, your children, they would all be under suspicion, possibly guilty of treason themselves; how could those who were so close to the Enemy ever be trusted? Whatever happens to them, well, you can be assured that as enemies of the state, they deserve it.

[Samicana]

Why does this not address conscription into non-combative roles? That would be far more controversial, and including it here would likely result in opposition. I would rather not risk no protections whatsoever being created. It is therefore preferable to have this address only conscription into combative roles, and leave it up to future resolutions to address conscription into non-combative roles.

I would also strongly discourage opposing this because it does not address non-combative military service. Such a position will not result in non-combative military service being addressed; but rather, no forms of conscientious objection being addressed. The scope of this proposal is, therefore, limited to combative military service.

Believing that individuals have the right not to be forced to participate in combative roles in an armed conflict despite holding conscientious, moral, or religious objections against such participation,

Further noting that conscripted conscientious objectors not only are likely to be demoralised themselves, but also demoralise the rest of the armed force in which they are conscripts, thus providing little to no advantage as soldiers,

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. No member nation may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein said individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.
   
   
2. Such an objection may only be voided by the individual in question. Further, no person may be penalised for expressing, holding, or failing to void, such an objection.
   
   
3. This resolution does not prohibit member nations from enforcing forced military service in compliance with Sections 1 and 2. Yet, regardless of the other provisions of this resolution, the World Assembly shall maintain the power to further restrict forced military service by resolution.

Associated repeal.

While I fully agree with the principles here I'm not sure that something as sweeping as this is going to pass. I'm not sure the more authoritarian countries are going to vote for something that doesn't allow them to still exploit the labor of conscientious objectors. I'm a little worried we're gonna repeal the current legislation and then nothing will replace it, completely undermining all the progress we've made on civil rights for draftees. But it looks like the vote to repeal the current legislation is going to pass overwhelmingly, so this may be the best shot we have.