[PASSED] Countering Agroterrorism

[Barfleur]

Countering Agroterrorism
Category: International Security | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

The World Assembly,

Conscious of the risks posed to sapient life by the deliberate targeting of food supplies for military or political purposes;

Reminding itself of prior resolutions governing the laws of war and the suppression of terrorism; and

Reaffirming its belief that war ought to be waged in a manner which avoids unnecessary civilian casualties,

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. General prohibition.
   No person or member nation may intentionally:
   
   1. disseminate any contagious disease among crops or livestock in a manner which:
      
      1. creates a substantial risk of death to one or more other persons; or
      2. deprives, or creates a substantial risk of depriving, any population or substantial section of the population of a source of food relied upon by that population;
   2. introduce any non-sapient invasive species to a region:
      
      1. with intent to cause major destruction to the natural ecosystem of that or another region;
      2. in a manner which creates a substantial risk of death to one or more other persons resulting from the characteristics of that species; or
      3. in a manner which deprives, or creates a substantial risk of depriving, any population or substantial section of the population of a source of food relied upon by that population,
      except that this subsection shall not apply to conduct performed by a member nation in respect of an ecosystem located wholly within another nation;
   3. damage or destroy facilities used for the purpose of producing, processing, or shipping food to a civilian population, except where such a facility is being used as a civilian shield in violation of international law;
   4. threaten to do any act described in subsections (a) through (c), where it appears that the person or nation making such a threat is willing and able to carry it out;
   5. attempt or conspire to do any act described in subsections (a) through (d).
2. Exceptions.
   Section 1 does not apply to any good-faith scientific experiment, provided that the person or nation conducting such experiment:
   
   1. informs all communities affected, or reasonably expected to be affected, by such experiment, of the nature thereof and of the measures taken to minimize risks;
   2. takes all reasonable precautions to ensure that, even if the experiment goes wrong to a significant degree, no community will suffer a substantial loss of food; and
   3. permits outside intervention in the case of an unforeseen error or outcome.
3. Enforcement.
   When a member nation discovers that one or more persons subject to its jurisdiction is violating or intends to violate section 1, it shall with appropriate haste:
   
   1. inform the World Health Authority and every other nation (including territorial subdivisions) affected or likely to be affected; and
   2. take all reasonably necessary action against such person or persons.
4. Ensuring food security.
   The World Health Authority shall:
   
   1. work with member nations to identify ways in which acts prohibited under section 1 can adversely affect food supplies;
   2. create and update as needed a program for the purposes of:
      
      1. minimizing the risks of such acts to food supplies;
      2. ensuring that, in the case of any such act being carried out, member nation populations will not suffer losses of food; and
      3. assisting in the efficient movement of food between member nations; and
   3. when informed under section 3(a), provide specific assistance to the nation or nations affected, as needed, to minimize the risks posed to sapient life and to the environment.

"Now that we have sent 'Ending Domestic Abuse' to the floor, and while we watch as that proposal sits in the queue, I would like to unveil my next project, one addressing two far lighter topics: terrorism and starvation."

[Barfleur]

Frequently Anticipated Questions (OOC)

1. Should the WA be in the business of legislating on terrorism?
Yes, in some cases. The recent repeal of a longstanding counterterrorism resolution was based on the fact that the target resolution (1) explicitly contained itself to acts by non-state actors, thus placing rebel movements at a legal disadvantage, and (2) required member nations to take action against terrorist groups without regard to whether the "terrorism" in question consisted of opposition to a dictatorial regime. Here, this proposal includes state as well as non-state actors, and focuses on particular conduct rather than on the affiliation of the perpetrator. Why? Because the acts described in clause 1 are bad and should be prohibited regardless of who is doing them. This also avoids the problem of, say, not forbidding bombing or murder generally but only bringing it under WA legislation when committed for a specific purpose. Under this proposal, it wouldn't matter who is doing it or why, it would just be illegal, period.

2. Then why is it called "Prohibition of Agricultural Terrorism?"
This proposal applies equally to nations, who would presumably use these tactics as part of war, and to non-state actors, who would presumably use them in acts of terror. Unlike GA#382, this covers more than acts by member nations, and thus goes beyond simple warfare. Terrorism just makes more sense. But the term isn't used or defined in the text, so it's just a matter of stylistic choice.

3. Is this something anyone would actually do?
There is obviously no clear and accepted number of times something like this would have been done in-universe, as RPs exist independently of one another, but it is enough of a threat to the environment and to sapient life that it should be banned. No doubt in some RP nations have been brought to their knees by carefully propagated animal diseases, something that should not be allowed to continue. The WA has banned radiological, biological, and environmental warfare, and there exists a proposal draft aimed at banning tectonic warfare, so there is no reason to leave agricultural terrorism unaddressed.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: 'Ambassador, please could you explain how Section 1b is not a duplication of GA #382: "Environmental Warfare Act"?

[Barfleur]

Neville: 'Ambassador, please could you explain how Section 1b is not a duplication of GA #382: "Environmental Warfare Act"?

"That is a good point you make. I have amended clause 1(b) to clarify that a member nation does not contravene GA#382 in relation to an ecosystem located wholly within a different nation--GA#382, after all, only 'PROHIBITS member nations from carrying out acts of environmental warfare against other nations,' which means that (1) it does not cover a nation's acts within its own borders for purposes of population control, and (2) non-state actors are not affected. Now we can close this loophole."

[Barfleur]

"We have edited the draft to forbid attempts and conspiracies to violate clause 1, and, more substantively, to require member nations to take reasonable steps to prevent illegal activities by persons subject to their jurisdiction. The purpose of this amendment is to be more forward looking, to not only punish violators but to prevent violations before they succeed in causing harm to sapient life or to the environment."

[Tinhampton]

"Prohibition of Agroterrorism" would be a cooler-sounding title.

Why is the Article 1b exemption necessary?

Why does Article 2b require that, for experiments, "no community will suffer a loss of food," rather than just a loss of food that community relies upon like in Article 1?

Does the WHA need to do anything on being informed about an Article 1 violation or is that just to make it look like it needs WHA attention?

What is the point of Article 4b(iii), given that it appears to apply even when Article 1 or 2c emergencies are not happening? (I think Art 4 needs a bit of a clarity rewrite so that its two parts are joined together rather than looking a bit split; this is a case study in why.)

[Barfleur]

"Prohibition of Agroterrorism" would be a cooler-sounding title.

"Why not?"

Why is the Article 1b exemption necessary?

"GA#382 forbids 'member nations from carrying out acts of environmental warfare against other nations.' Thus, to avoid duplication, clause 1(b) cannot forbid the same activity. What this clause would do is forbid it when done by private actors, or by a member nation internally, such as to suppress a rebellion or engage in population control, or for whatever other reason there may be."

Why does Article 2b require that, for experiments, "no community will suffer a loss of food," rather than just a loss of food that community relies upon like in Article 1?

"I have changed this to require that no community would suffer a substantial loss of food, which would do the same thing. A population that does not rely on a given area would not be so affected. But at the same time, I wanted to recognize that an experiment authorized under clause 2, if it were to go wrong, might spread to areas not initially included in the experiment. It's not the area that matters, it's how many communities will or will not be harmed."

Does the WHA need to do anything on being informed about an Article 1 violation or is that just to make it look like it needs WHA attention?

"That is a good point; I have added clause 4(c)."

What is the point of Article 4b(iii), given that it appears to apply even when Article 1 or 2c emergencies are not happening? (I think Art 4 needs a bit of a clarity rewrite so that its two parts are joined together rather than looking a bit split; this is a case study in why.)

"Clause 4(b)(iii) would require the WHA to be proactive in reducing barriers to the transportation of food between nations so that, were an agroterrorist attack to take place, the nations of the World Assembly would not be caught on the back foot."

[Barfleur]

OOC: Bump. Not sure what would make this proposal better, but I'm not in any hurry to submit.

[Wallenburg]

I fail to see any area of non-duplication with Biological Warfare Convention, Environmental Warfare Act, and Agricultural Invasive Species Act all in effect.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I fail to see any area of non-duplication with Biological Warfare Convention, Environmental Warfare Act, and Agricultural Invasive Species Act all in effect.

OOC: I believe that this line should cover Environmental Warfare Act (indeed, it was added in response to me pointing out the potential duplication):

except that this subsection shall not apply to conduct performed by a member nation in respect of an ecosystem located wholly within another nation;

As for the other resolutions, I do not see how Clause 1c duplicates any of those resolutions. However, I feel as if there might be another war-related resolution that already deals with it, but I haven't found anything yet.

[Wallenburg]

I fail to see any area of non-duplication with Biological Warfare Convention, Environmental Warfare Act, and Agricultural Invasive Species Act all in effect.

OOC: I believe that this line should cover Environmental Warfare Act (indeed, it was added in response to me pointing out the potential duplication):

except that this subsection shall not apply to conduct performed by a member nation in respect of an ecosystem located wholly within another nation;

As for the other resolutions, I do not see how Clause 1c duplicates any of those resolutions. However, I feel as if there might be another war-related resolution that already deals with it, but I haven't found anything yet.

I think you're right. 1(c) establishes new restrictions, since such facilities are considered legitimate wartime targets, especially while in active use by military organisations.

[The Ice States]

deprives, or creates a substantial risk of depriving, any population or section of the population of a source of food relied upon by that population;

"What is a 'section of the population'? Does one person destroying their personal farm by spreading a disease, thus depriving themselves of a source of food, count? While scenarios where this would truly be a problem are few, clarification would be helpful here."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of the Ice States.

[Hulldom]

I really am afraid I don't understand the inclusion of this particular exception in 1(b):

except that this subsection shall not apply to conduct performed by a member nation in respect of an ecosystem located wholly within another nation;

What is it there to do? What is its practical effect?

[Barfleur]

I really am afraid I don't understand the inclusion of this particular exception in 1(b):

except that this subsection shall not apply to conduct performed by a member nation in respect of an ecosystem located wholly within another nation;

What is it there to do? What is its practical effect?

"That part exists to avoid duplication of GA#382, by both covering and limiting itself to those acts which fall outside the scope of the prior resolution."

deprives, or creates a substantial risk of depriving, any population or section of the population of a source of food relied upon by that population;

"What is a 'section of the population'? Does one person destroying their personal farm by spreading a disease, thus depriving themselves of a source of food, count? While scenarios where this would truly be a problem are few, clarification would be helpful here."
"That is a good point. In my mind, 'section of the population' means enough people for it to be beyond a single household, but I suppose that could be clearer."

[Barfleur]

"After a period of seeming dormancy, the Barfleurian WA mission is fired up, at least somewhat, and ready for action. Consider this a last call."

[Sultanate of Turkey]

‘Sapient’ life?

Why not just refer to it as human?

[Tinhampton]

‘Sapient’ life?

Why not just refer to it as human?

Not all thinking beings in the WA are human: GA#355 acknowledges this. For many years, the most famous non-human sapients in the WA were the bears of Bears Armed - although their ursine companion, singular, from Simone Republic is more in the public eye nowadays.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

‘Sapient’ life?

Why not just refer to it as human?

Not all thinking beings in the WA are human: GA#355 acknowledges this. For many years, the most famous non-human sapients in the WA were the bears of Bears Armed - although their ursine companion, singular, from Simone Republic is more in the public eye nowadays.

Ah, very smart.


Apologies OP, everything looks great! The General section, however, why is it written in a plural form?

[Barfleur]

Not all thinking beings in the WA are human: GA#355 acknowledges this. For many years, the most famous non-human sapients in the WA were the bears of Bears Armed - although their ursine companion, singular, from Simone Republic is more in the public eye nowadays.

Ah, very smart.


Apologies OP, everything looks great! The General section, however, why is it written in a plural form?

"That is just the preferred writing style of the mission. We have found that pluralization reads more naturally and includes all that needs to be included in a concise manner. Consider the alternative in clause 1(a): 'no person or member nation may intentionally disseminate any contagious disease to any crop or to any livestock...' That just does not make sense. Crops and livestock are plural; no farmer raises exactly one chicken or one cow."

[Barfleur]

OOC: Last call alert.

[Simone Republic]

I am getting lazy to comment these days but anyway here's one.

‘Sapient’ life?

Why not just refer to it as human?

Not all thinking beings in the WA are human: GA#355 acknowledges this. For many years, the most famous non-human sapients in the WA were the bears of Bears Armed - although their ursine companion, singular, from Simone Republic is more in the public eye nowadays.

(IC)

Usually in the public eye for entirely the wrong reasons. And yes I have arms.

There may or may not be multiple bears in Simone Republic, they all just happen to be creamy white.

(OOC) I just couldn't be bothered to create another character, to be honest.

[*]damage or destroy facilities used for the purpose of producing, processing, or shipping food to a civilian population, except where such a facility is being used as a civilian shield;

You used a double negative here, so you are actually permitting facilities to be destroyed if they are being used as a civilian shield (which is likely a war crime, regardless of whether that's IC or in the Geneva Convention).

invasive species

Your definition of "invasive species" is different from GAR#382 in not specifying "non-sapient". I mean, humans by definition are an invasive species, just that because we are humans, we ignore the philosophical argument. If a human nation invades another human nation, and starts eating the other humans, is that banned here? Kenmoria's cannibalism ban has an exception for eating human meat in desperate circumstances, my original version does not.

(And to get into RP territory, if you invade a nation of humans and dogs, both are sapient, and the local humans eats the dogs for food, and the invaders eat the dogs for food, is that covered)?

[Barfleur]

RE Simone Republic.

"Clause 1(c) permits the targeting of such facilities only when they are used illegally as civilian shields, and I have edited the draft accordingly. The reasoning is that, if a belligerent power decides to store missiles in a food warehouse, and such use is illegal, it cannot then complain that its missile storage is being targeted and that it also happens to be a civilian food site.

"I have amended 'invasive species' to clarify that it does not cover sapient species. The goal is to forbid the intentional deployment of organisms for the purpose of causing harm as an invasive species, not an invasion by sapient troops that happens to incidentally harm the surrounding landscape."

[Simone Republic]

RE Simone Republic.

"Clause 1(c) permits the targeting of such facilities only when they are used illegally as civilian shields, and I have edited the draft accordingly. The reasoning is that, if a belligerent power decides to store missiles in a food warehouse, and such use is illegal, it cannot then complain that its missile storage is being targeted and that it also happens to be a civilian food site.
"

I think you have to reword 1c with regards to dual use facilities. There are a couple of war related resolutions that indirectly deal with this but they are also a bit inefficient.

[Barfleur]

RE Simone Republic.

"Clause 1(c) permits the targeting of such facilities only when they are used illegally as civilian shields, and I have edited the draft accordingly. The reasoning is that, if a belligerent power decides to store missiles in a food warehouse, and such use is illegal, it cannot then complain that its missile storage is being targeted and that it also happens to be a civilian food site.
"

I think you have to reword 1c with regards to dual use facilities. There are a couple of war related resolutions that indirectly deal with this but they are also a bit inefficient.

"In which direction? Should dual-use facilities be protected or unprotected by this resolution?"

[Wallenburg]

I think you have to reword 1c with regards to dual use facilities. There are a couple of war related resolutions that indirectly deal with this but they are also a bit inefficient.

"In which direction? Should dual-use facilities be protected or unprotected by this resolution?"

"It would seem straightforward that military targets are valid near-independent of what civilian inventory they are stored with. Unless it would inflict some sort of humanitarian disaster, militaries should be free to seize, incapacitate, or destroy such facilities."