[DRAFT] Convention Against Military Aggression

[The Ice States]

I had originally drafted this a few years ago (link) but given that I rarely use the OP nation now and the thread has largely faded into obscurity, I have reposted this in a new thread. Comments welcome.

FAQ:

"Section 3b is the WA sponsoring wars!" It does not sponsor or authorise anything. It merely leaves it to a second resolution to legislate on further (as shown by "exceptions shall apply to Section 2"; not necessarily to other resolutions). Just because something is determined to be "essential for the halting of a...crime against humanity" does not necessarily make it impossible to restrict or prohibit in other resolutions.

"This sends WA armies off to warzones!" It does no such thing; all it does is make wars of aggression illegal. See Section 5.

"Under what category will this be submitted?" Currently Global Disarmament - Significant. I intend to submit before categories are abolished so as to measure GD's effects once and for all.

Affirming that saving the lives of those under the WA's protection is and ought to be among the highest priorities of this body;

Resolute that member nations, having united with each other to form this august institution, should work in harmony together to improve the world;

Holding, therefore, the World Assembly has a moral duty to use its influence to protect the security of member nations, allowing them to more efficiently spend their finite resources and collaborate to improve the world without having to cope with the threat of armed attack from other member nations;

Cognisant that the repeal of "Rights and Duties of WA States" has opened the doors to greater opportunities to promote peace between the nations of this grand bureaucracy; and

Recognising the possibility of non-compliance with this resolution, yet believing that the existence of a framework to allow for the prosecution of those responsible for wars of aggression, along with the deterrence of even some unnecessary bloodbath, outweighs whatever minor administrative costs are needed to enforce such legislation;

The World Assembly proudly enacts the following convention against military aggression.

1. Definitions: For the purposes of this resolution, an act of war against a nation shall mean any act involving the wilful use of armed force to prevent that nation from exercising full sovereignty over its jurisdiction. Continued military occupation or blockade, where conducted against the will of the targeted member nation, as well as declaration of war, shall each be considered acts of war. A crime against humanity is a widespread, ongoing act intended to attack or otherwise destroy a civilian population.
   
   
2. Aggression: Neither the World Assembly nor any member nation may perform, threaten, instigate, or assist any act of war against another member nation, subject only to Section 3.
   
   
   1. Any violation of the above clause constitutes a crime of aggression, which shall itself be classed as a heinous crime and a crime against peace. An individual shall be liable for the crime of aggression if that individual utilised a position of leadership to personally determine a member nation's perpetration of a violation of the said clause.
      
      
   2. Member nations are urged to also observe this Section in their interactions with non-member nations, as well as to recognise such non-members, as if they were interacting with a member nation.
   
   
3. Exceptions: Regardless of this resolution's other mandates, Section 2 shall not prohibit the provision of assistance to, instigation of, threatening of, or performance of, the following acts, although this shall not prevent the World Assembly from separately addressing, restricting, or prohibiting the said acts:
   
   1. Armed action which (i) is taken by a member nation to defend against an act of war against that nation, or against any other nation where that act would violate this resolution if performed against a member nation; (ii) targets only those nations which performed, instigated or assisted the said act of war; (iii) uses no more force than would be proportionate to the severity of the said act of war; and (iv) does not interrupt any period of the de facto absence of substantial armed conflict between the nations in question, including the one subject to the said act of war;
      
      
   2. Humanitarian intervention, which the polity performing such intervention can conclusively show is (i) essential for the halting of a crime against humanity; and (ii) performed in the most limited manner necessary to halt the said crime against humanity, and prevent the resumption of crimes against humanity.
   
   
4. Dispute arbitration: The Wartime Service for Arbitration is a subcommittee of the International Mediation Foundation, and shall arbitrate disputes vis-à-vis acts of war upon consent from all involved parties, regardless of whether the said parties are member nations. Such arbitration is to occur on internationally neutral territory, and shall have the goal of ending or preventing armed conflict. Further, said arbitration shall be binding if all involved parties are under World Assembly jurisdiction, and have agreed to be legally bound by the arbitration award.
   
   
5. Interpretation: Section headings do not alter the meaning or interpretation of this resolution. Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. The World Assembly reserves the ability to pass further resolutions extending to non-member nations similar protections as the ones granted to member nations in this resolution. No part of this resolution authorises the World Assembly to conduct any military intervention to enforce this resolution.

[The Ice States]

Drafts subject to aggressive military bombing campaigns.

[Tinhampton]

Again:

"Section 3b is the WA sponsoring wars!" It doesn't sponsor or authorise anything. It merely leaves it to a second resolution to legislate on further (as shown by "exceptions shall apply to Section 2"; not necessarily to other resolutions).

Article 2 applies only to member nations, not to the WA itself. Unless I'm missing something here!

[The Ice States]

I've changed it to apply to both the WA and member nations.

[Cessarea]

"Repealing that accursed resolution is the best thing the World Assembly has done since... well, since time immemorial!" Minister Adamant Gauntlet VI whispered to herself, tapping an impatient finger against the desk she occupied. She stood to speak, addressing the proposal's authors. "I have been tasked especially with... observing the drafting process of this proposal, on behalf of the Ministerial Council."

She took a piece of paper from the desk, read it briefly, and continued: "Cessarea is thrilled at the prospect of furthering peace between World Assembly nations - our comrades in the international community. On the matter of small objections, we would like to question the authors' reluctance on substituting 'humanity' for 'intelligent/sapient life', or other more appropriate terminology. I have observed that the authors have, in the past, refused to make that accommodation by citing precedent, but we are nonetheless discontent. I've also noticed some odd phrasing in article '4'. Here, let me point it out..."

"[...] and shall have the goal of ending, preventing, or preventing escalation of armed conflict."

"I would like to suggest a small change to prevent repetition. Perhaps..."

"[...] and shall have the goal of ending or preventing armed conflict, or the escalation thereof."

"Onto more pressing matters, we are concerned about article '3', paragraph 'a'. Provision 'i' does nothing to limit the retaliation a nation may take against an act of war, which would seem to be most pressing for a proposal that seeks to prevent, among other things, the escalation of warfare. If, say, a militarily inferior nation begins a conflict, this resolution would do very little to prevent their superior rival from retaliating with undue strength, using their status as the war's official victim as legal protection. Whilst, of course, that can be fixed by future resolutions, we believe that accounting for a sensible escalation of response to acts of war now would save the international community, and us, some future headache." She instinctively shook her head upon finishing, ending on a robotic - more so than usual - tone, completely detached from what she was speaking.

"Now, this next part is of the utmost importance to Cessarea: as of now, the proposal does not make any mandates in regards to the relationship between members and non-members of the WA. Will that remain so during this drafting process, or have the authors considered the possibility of further binding members into everlasting peace with non-members? Regardless of the answer, we are..." She paused, searched through some of her notes, and hesitantly continued, "overjoyed by this proposal, and support it wholeheartedly." Her eyes squinted, eyeing the paper in her hands with what could be either described as suspicion or disgust. Either way, the annotated paper found itself halfway across the chamber, seemingly defying aerodynamics with the sheer strength by which it was thrown. Adamant Gauntlet VI sat back down on her armchair, and distracted herself by crushing innocent ants under her thin fingers. Were they closer to her desk, I'm sure she would be crushing gnomes as well.

[Stella Nera]

Definetely voting against, I'm all for stopping crimes against humanity and stuff but the concept of crimes against peace is stupid. Wars happen for a reason, and preventing them doesn't get rid of the issues which contribute to war, which can be resolved through such action.

Many WA nations are militaristic states and this is also a direct assault on their identity as such, WA nations should be free to settle their own squabbles priavtely without the ever-intruding WA to interfere. You've already created a WA global police force, which should have been repealed, this is another direct attack on WA member state individuality.

[The Overmind]

Full support.

[Stella Nera]

Full support.

Not surprised you would support at all, you give off pacifist vibes and anything against violence in general.

Fully against, pacifism is lame. Violence is bad but on an international scale, between nations, it may be sometimes necessary.

[The Overmind]

Full support.

Not surprised you would support at all, you give off pacifist vibes and anything against violence in general.

Fully against, pacifism is lame. Violence is bad but on an international scale, between nations, it may be sometimes necessary.

I think you should tone down how personal you are with me. We're not friends.

[Stella Nera]

Not surprised you would support at all, you give off pacifist vibes and anything against violence in general.

Fully against, pacifism is lame. Violence is bad but on an international scale, between nations, it may be sometimes necessary.

I think you should tone down how personal you are with me. We're not friends.

When did I say we were friends?

[The Overmind]

I think you should tone down how personal you are with me. We're not friends.

When did I say we were friends?

Do yourself a favor. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#004

[Stella Nera]

When did I say we were friends?

Do yourself a favor. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#004

Okay but what does this have to do with anything in this forum or what we were talking about?

[The Overmind]

Apologies The Ice States, for the unintentional threadjacking. Rooting for this legislation, and looking forward to seeing how it develops.

[Stella Nera]

Ice States just loves to use the WA to enforce their ideals on other nations, they already have shown this by creating a WA global police force, which somehow didn't get repealed. Someone should condemn them in the Security Council, the fact they get praised for these acts is ludicrous.

[The Ice States]

Ice States just loves to use the WA to enforce their ideals on other nations, they already have shown this by creating a WA global police force, which somehow didn't get repealed. Someone should condemn them in the Security Council, the fact they get praised for these acts is ludicrous.

I'm not sure why you seem to have something personal against me. I have nothing personal against you, for the record, however if you have an issue with me I would prefer it be addressed privately. Please stop using my drafting threads for these sort of purposes.

Re Cessarea, per Discord the comments on Sections 3a and 4 should be addressed; Ic reply addressing the rest should come soon.

[Second Sovereignty]

"I, for one," said Raxes, "Admit to being somewhat pleasantly surprised that we aren't further employing your pet international death-squads in this draft. Please do not change this, we would have to reassess our support quite negatively." He clicked. "Which, of course, implies as is very much the case, that the Sovereign doesn't have any objections to the draft's purpose or intent. We are in firm support of the concept; though, we do have concerns to address. Let me list them out:"

1. Acts of war: [...]

"Your definition for 'acts of war', Section 1, is incomplete considering later expansions of the term in the draft. Why bury consideration of extended occupations - a term, which, I must note, you have failed to define; one nation's military occupations may well be another's humanitarian peacekeeping, or liberation, or what-have-you, - or blockades, as Acts of War, in Section 3.a? It's, simply poor organizing, and may cause confusion. Other than that, this is fairly elegant, though I am not entirely sure that others won't have more objections with it."

2. Sovereignty: [...]

Next, Section 2 is something of a mistake from the outset; Sovereignty," Raxes chittered, mostly to himself, "In general definition, is a two-fold affair. That being; the formal right to govern a territory, - Legitimacy, if we would like to be more specific, and I would, - and the practical case of doing so, which we will simply call Governance. Unfortunately," he clicked again, more sharply this time, "You seem to be attempting to render these concepts one and the same, so as to thus confer them upon all Member-States. Let's run through both immediate problems:

First, Military Occupation. A Member-State is presumed to have absolute Legitimacy throughout all territories it Governs, - within its jurisdiction, if you prefer, though you haven't defined that term either and you should, but we'll get to that later. Say, the following: Member-State 'A' invades and occupies Non-Member-State 'B'. B has no universally recognized Sovereignty per the World Assembly; A, as a Member-State, does. Whose claim is authoritative per Section 3.a, or Section 4? Consider the following factors: 'B' claims Sovereignty as the legitimate and immediately prior authority of the territory. It has presently, no territorial control, and is not presumptively recognized as Sovereign. 'A', claims Sovereignty as a Member-State inherently, and both specifically claims to be the legitimate authority of the territory, and has complete territorial control - Full Jurisdiction, if you will.
How are Member-States to interpret this, per Section 3.a and 3.b? How will these factors weigh in the decisions of the WSA, which must end or prevent armed conflict, between the actors in question crucially distinct from the objective of producing a just outcome for the territory in question. Note that 'B', despite what Section 4 - possibly illegally - implies, is not legally bound by the decisions of the WSA in any meaningful fashion, nor can 'B' be reasonably expected to act as such, even at the potential cost of more Member-States piling upon it for continued hostilities against the World-Assembly recognized 'A' in the event of an unjust decision against them.
Please also consider whether the situation is different if 'B' contains a minority population of nationals from 'A' whom 'B' claims to act in favor of. And whether that answer changes if said minority population is genuinely unjustly suppressed or disenfranchised such that it may reasonably justify some form of action."

Raxes coughed - more of a choked hissing sound, really. "I should've brought water, I didn't expect to be talking this much..." He clicked yet again. "Second point; A Member-State simply being a Member-State, does not necessarily render it inherently legitimate. The membership criteria of the Secretariat is, politely, arcane; the Sovereignty wasn't permitted Membership until the prior occupant of our office - which, if the records available are any indication, certainly wouldn't be considered a legitimate government of anything under Sovereign law, considering its history, - had ceased to exist as a political entity. Simply put, and, tangentially related to the earlier tangent, thinking about, the World Assembly permits the Membership of fascist and supremacist states, or entities founded on long-standing occupation and exploitation, and, if you can believe it, entities which cannot reasonably considered a government at all. While they may certainly be inarguably the governing body of their territories, blanketly assigning presumptive legitimacy and protection from hostility to such states is, well, a very dire prospect indeed, regardless of whether they are presently violating the very lacking World Assembly laws on 'crimes against humanity', or, peace, or, of a particular heinousness. This is simply a deeply and fundamentally irresponsible and ill-considered mandate. The Sovereignty tentatively supports this draft, as previously stated, but any submission with this facet in place in anything resembling its current form will be opposed absolutely, for quite serious humanitarian reasons."

3. Exceptions: [...]

Raxes chittered lightly. "There, I think that's, ah, -" He glances down at the draft again, "- Just, one section's objections. Of course. Section 3, then.

With regards to 3.a; first, who exactly is considered 'responsible', per the this draft? Lets return to our example prior, though we shall say 'B' is also a Member-State for this purpose. 'A' produces little of its own equipment, and is still occupying 'B'. Member-State 'C' produces equipment, and provides it to 'A', and even permits 'A' to recruit for its military from its population. 'C', is, to the extent of its own military and political structures, otherwise uninvolved in the war. 'C', may be quite reasonably understood as bearing no small responsibility for the war; 'A', simply could not fight it, were it not for 'C' providing them endless amounts of unassailable supplies, monies, personnel, et-cetera, from afar. Is 'B', thus, permitted to engage in targeted attacks on military-industrial infrastructure within 'C'? Note that 'A' is, by virtue of 'B' producing its own equipment within its territories under occupation, very able to destroy 'B's military industrial infrastructure. Consider if your answer changes if 'A' and 'C' maintain a high-level of military cooperation in all fields, including regional conflicts, except with regards to 'B'.
Next, still in 3.a; the matter of 'proportionate' armed action. Again, who decides this? The term, like most others of import here, is not defined. Again, prior example. 'A's occupation of 'B' results in immense civilian casualties. Is 'B' inherently justified in thus turning around and, slaughtering civilians? Consider if the answer changes if said slaughters are carefully calculated to match population-percentage casualties. Consider again, if this changes if these civilians are being deliberately placed within, or encouraged to move to territories occupied from 'B', by 'A' - please read Resolution 345, including Clause 5, before answering. Per the first point against 3.a, if 'B' is permitted to attack 'C', is 'B' permitted to similarly slaughter civilians in 'C', in accordance with the aforementioned calculation?
Extending this somewhat; Two World-Assembly Law violations do not make a right; what reasonable military action is proportionate for 'B' to undertake against 'A' in the face of mass civilian murder, if not more mass civilian murder?
Lastly," said Raxes, "with regards to 3.a, at least; is a 'de facto absence of armed conflict', meant to refer exclusively to conflict between the Member-States in question? I must presume it is, because, otherwise that would be absurd. Please be specific, if so. Also; why is this clause here at all? If 3.a is coming into consideration, there is already a 'substantial' armed conflict."

Raxes 'coughed' again. "With regards to 3.b, we have only one objection, beyond the previously stated immense inadequacy of World Assembly law to serve as grounds for humanitarian intervention; What exactly is 'the most limited manner necessary' to be judged by? Let's again, return to our example. Presume 'A' is conducting 'crimes against humanity'; entities which engage in, say, genocide, are unlikely to simply 'learn their lesson' and stop doing so forever when served a few defeats. 'D', a fourth uninvolved Member-State intervening on behalf of 'B', - and many actual Member-States, I'm sure, - may quite reasonably determine that the 'most limited' way to prevent these crimes is the total defeat and dissolution of 'A' as a political entity. 'C', may think otherwise. Whose position is authoritative? Further, per the first point against 3.a, again, if 'C' is considered responsible in the war, is it thus a valid target, for 'D', specifically?"

4. Dispute arbitration: [...]

"Section 4. The last one. First of all; as previously noted, Non-Member-States are not bound by World Assembly law or the decisions of agents thereof. Proclaiming otherwise is, unlikely to be looked well upon by the Secretariat. Additionally, what exactly is binding 'A', if a decision is made against them? Not only are they under no obligation to enter into arbitration in the first place, they are already non-compliant; what exactly stops them from simply continuing to ignore World Assembly law that applies specifically in this case, rather than simply broadly to all noncompliance? As it stands, the answer seems to be 'absolutely nothing', which is, not useful, shall we say. Please do not take this point as justification to deploy the aforementioned international death-squads."

Raxes paused, clicked, and set the draft aside. "There. Done now. For now, at least. Please provide full responses to the concerns stated, et-cetera."

[Newkanatek]

We have decided to reject the proposal as it currently stands but are optimistic about it's future.

The People's Republic of Newkanatek recognizes the need for a reduction of military aggression.... However, as our great nation has it's own non-aggression policies in line with this draft and we pride ourselves on our contributions humanitarian aid having donated over 500 containers of Newkanatek Gold potatoes this year alone, we believe that this draft does not provide enough provisions for the use of weapons of mass distraction such as nuclear armement.

Having been settled on what was once known as the Buccaneers Atol, a former nuclear test bed for the United States of Americia, we know all too well the effects of allowing unchecked nuclear testing merely because a nation believes they are at an imminent threat of mutually assured distraction. As such, our scientists now must work tirelessly to avoid further mutations in our Newkanatek Gold potatoes as a result of improperly cleaned nuclear fallout. As such, we demand that such a treaty include provisions holding nations who have previously neglected cleanup of spent arms both in the name of testing and in conflict be held accountable by the international community to ensure that such cleanups do not fall on the shoulders of other nations who must bare the consequences.

If this draft is modified to include provisions compelling nations to clean up their messes both past and present, The People's Republic of Newkanatek will vote in favor of this draft.

[The Ice States]

1. Acts of war: [...]

"Your definition for 'acts of war', Section 1, is incomplete considering later expansions of the term in the draft. Why bury consideration of extended occupations - a term, which, I must note, you have failed to define; one nation's military occupations may well be another's humanitarian peacekeeping, or liberation, or what-have-you, - or blockades, as Acts of War, in Section 3.a? It's, simply poor organizing, and may cause confusion. Other than that, this is fairly elegant, though I am not entirely sure that others won't have more objections with it."

"Thank you for your feedback -- for what it's worth, I would consider that occupation and blockade is inherently an act of war under the current definition, and the clarification is more so for ambiguity over 'armed conflict'. However, I have no particular objections to adding it here either."

2. Sovereignty: [...]

Next, Section 2 is something of a mistake from the outset; Sovereignty," Raxes chittered, mostly to himself, "In general definition, is a two-fold affair. That being; the formal right to govern a territory, - Legitimacy, if we would like to be more specific, and I would, - and the practical case of doing so, which we will simply call Governance. Unfortunately," he clicked again, more sharply this time, "You seem to be attempting to render these concepts one and the same, so as to thus confer them upon all Member-States. Let's run through both immediate problems:

First, Military Occupation. A Member-State is presumed to have absolute Legitimacy throughout all territories it Governs, - within its jurisdiction, if you prefer, though you haven't defined that term either and you should, but we'll get to that later. Say, the following: Member-State 'A' invades and occupies Non-Member-State 'B'. B has no universally recognized Sovereignty per the World Assembly; A, as a Member-State, does. Whose claim is authoritative per Section 3.a, or Section 4? Consider the following factors: 'B' claims Sovereignty as the legitimate and immediately prior authority of the territory. It has presently, no territorial control, and is not presumptively recognized as Sovereign. 'A', claims Sovereignty as a Member-State inherently, and both specifically claims to be the legitimate authority of the territory, and has complete territorial control - Full Jurisdiction, if you will.
How are Member-States to interpret this, per Section 3.a and 3.b? How will these factors weigh in the decisions of the WSA, which must end or prevent armed conflict, between the actors in question crucially distinct from the objective of producing a just outcome for the territory in question. Note that 'B', despite what Section 4 - possibly illegally - implies, is not legally bound by the decisions of the WSA in any meaningful fashion, nor can 'B' be reasonably expected to act as such, even at the potential cost of more Member-States piling upon it for continued hostilities against the World-Assembly recognized 'A' in the event of an unjust decision against them.
Please also consider whether the situation is different if 'B' contains a minority population of nationals from 'A' whom 'B' claims to act in favor of. And whether that answer changes if said minority population is genuinely unjustly suppressed or disenfranchised such that it may reasonably justify some form of action."

Raxes coughed - more of a choked hissing sound, really. "I should've brought water, I didn't expect to be talking this much..." He clicked yet again. "Second point; A Member-State simply being a Member-State, does not necessarily render it inherently legitimate. The membership criteria of the Secretariat is, politely, arcane; the Sovereignty wasn't permitted Membership until the prior occupant of our office - which, if the records available are any indication, certainly wouldn't be considered a legitimate government of anything under Sovereign law, considering its history, - had ceased to exist as a political entity. Simply put, and, tangentially related to the earlier tangent, thinking about, the World Assembly permits the Membership of fascist and supremacist states, or entities founded on long-standing occupation and exploitation, and, if you can believe it, entities which cannot reasonably considered a government at all. While they may certainly be inarguably the governing body of their territories, blanketly assigning presumptive legitimacy and protection from hostility to such states is, well, a very dire prospect indeed, regardless of whether they are presently violating the very lacking World Assembly laws on 'crimes against humanity', or, peace, or, of a particular heinousness. This is simply a deeply and fundamentally irresponsible and ill-considered mandate. The Sovereignty tentatively supports this draft, as previously stated, but any submission with this facet in place in anything resembling its current form will be opposed absolutely, for quite serious humanitarian reasons."

"We note that this wording is mostly the same as in the Civil Charter of the World Assembly, written by the Ice and Kenmorian missions years back. That resolution indeed requires all member nations to recognise the sovereignty of each other, and we saw it apt to mention here as well. This is why the wording 'reaffirms', instead of, for example, 'declares', is used here. However, as these provisions are already enacted we do not particularly object to removing it in this resolution as well. We have, instead, replaced it with a hortatory provision encouraging member nations to recognise non-member nations, currently worded as follows,"

Member nations are, further, urged to observe this Section in their interactions with non-member nations, as well as to recognise such non-members, as if they were interacting with a member nation.

With regards to 3.a; first, who exactly is considered 'responsible', per the this draft? Lets return to our example prior, though we shall say 'B' is also a Member-State for this purpose. 'A' produces little of its own equipment, and is still occupying 'B'. Member-State 'C' produces equipment, and provides it to 'A', and even permits 'A' to recruit for its military from its population. 'C', is, to the extent of its own military and political structures, otherwise uninvolved in the war. 'C', may be quite reasonably understood as bearing no small responsibility for the war; 'A', simply could not fight it, were it not for 'C' providing them endless amounts of unassailable supplies, monies, personnel, et-cetera, from afar. Is 'B', thus, permitted to engage in targeted attacks on military-industrial infrastructure within 'C'? Note that 'A' is, by virtue of 'B' producing its own equipment within its territories under occupation, very able to destroy 'B's military industrial infrastructure. Consider if your answer changes if 'A' and 'C' maintain a high-level of military cooperation in all fields, including regional conflicts, except with regards to 'B'.

"This is a well-taken point; indeed, a member nation could certainly claim that another nation is 'responsible' for an act of war it is not engaged in or which it otherwise supports. Even more tenuous connections, such as that one nation made a scientific breakthrough allowing for another member nation's use of advanced technology for an act of war, would be problematic in this context. I believe that changing 'responsible for' to something along the lines of 'engaged in' should address this issue; do you agree? For now we have effected such a change to Section 3a, and it would certainly be appreciated if your mission could review the new wording."

Next, still in 3.a; the matter of 'proportionate' armed action. Again, who decides this? The term, like most others of import here, is not defined. Again, prior example. 'A's occupation of 'B' results in immense civilian casualties. Is 'B' inherently justified in thus turning around and, slaughtering civilians? Consider if the answer changes if said slaughters are carefully calculated to match population-percentage casualties. Consider again, if this changes if these civilians are being deliberately placed within, or encouraged to move to territories occupied from 'B', by 'A' - please read Resolution 345, including Clause 5, before answering. Per the first point against 3.a, if 'B' is permitted to attack 'C', is 'B' permitted to similarly slaughter civilians in 'C', in accordance with the aforementioned calculation?
Extending this somewhat; Two World-Assembly Law violations do not make a right; what reasonable military action is proportionate for 'B' to undertake against 'A' in the face of mass civilian murder, if not more mass civilian murder?

"This is also a fair point, and indeed we would not intend to permit mass civilian slaughter as retaliation under this provision. We have amended the clause so that it is merely the scale of force used which must be proportionate to the severity of the said act of war. As a practical example, this would mean that member nations still cannot retaliate to a minor border incident with a full ground invasion, if that is not already prohibited under the 'substantial armed conflict' provision."

Lastly," said Raxes, "with regards to 3.a, at least; is a 'de facto absence of armed conflict', meant to refer exclusively to conflict between the Member-States in question? I must presume it is, because, otherwise that would be absurd. Please be specific, if so.

"This is correct, and we have implemented a clarification to this end."

Also; why is this clause here at all? If 3.a is coming into consideration, there is already a 'substantial' armed conflict."

"This wording is intentional and I believe does have an important policy effect. Without it, it may very well be legal for a member nation to initiate a war to retaliate against an act of war a century ago, or otherwise in the past but with peace having occurred afterwards. This sort of war would clearly go against the spirit of the resolution, and should thus be prohibited. The use of 'substantial' is also necessary to ensure that, as mentioned, a minor border incident does not justify the initiation of a complete war; a member nation seeking to do that may very well attempt to argue that the incident was an attempt to prevent the invader from exercising jurisdiction."

Raxes 'coughed' again. "With regards to 3.b, we have only one objection, beyond the previously stated immense inadequacy of World Assembly law to serve as grounds for humanitarian intervention; What exactly is 'the most limited manner necessary' to be judged by? Let's again, return to our example. Presume 'A' is conducting 'crimes against humanity'; entities which engage in, say, genocide, are unlikely to simply 'learn their lesson' and stop doing so forever when served a few defeats. 'D', a fourth uninvolved Member-State intervening on behalf of 'B', - and many actual Member-States, I'm sure, - may quite reasonably determine that the 'most limited' way to prevent these crimes is the total defeat and dissolution of 'A' as a political entity. 'C', may think otherwise. Whose position is authoritative?

"As of now, it must be proven by the nation conducting the intervention that it is both essential and the most limited manner necessary to halt the relevant acts. Whether a member nation has indeed shown this would, I presume, be determined by the Independent Adjudicative Office when a nation is prosecuted for a war which allegedly falls under this resolution."

Further, per the first point against 3.a, again, if 'C' is considered responsible in the war, is it thus a valid target, for 'D', specifically?"

"This point should be moot with the new changes to Section 3a."

4. Dispute arbitration: [...]

"Section 4. The last one. First of all; as previously noted, Non-Member-States are not bound by World Assembly law or the decisions of agents thereof. Proclaiming otherwise is, unlikely to be looked well upon by the Secretariat.

"Naturally it would indeed be illegal for a proposal to assert jurisdiction over non-members, however I do not believe that it does this, or did this as of the wording you commented on. In any case, we have amended the wording to make this more clear."

Additionally, what exactly is binding 'A', if a decision is made against them? Not only are they under no obligation to enter into arbitration in the first place, they are already non-compliant; what exactly stops them from simply continuing to ignore World Assembly law that applies specifically in this case, rather than simply broadly to all noncompliance? As it stands, the answer seems to be 'absolutely nothing', which is, not useful, shall we say. Please do not take this point as justification to deploy the aforementioned international death-squads."

"The incentive to comply would be the fact that the nation specifically consented to arbitration, as opposed to the legislation simply coming into force as part of the package of World Assembly law. In any case, if a member nation intends to violate the decision it seems unlikely that it would consent to the arbitration being binding."

Raxes paused, clicked, and set the draft aside. "There. Done now. For now, at least. Please provide full responses to the concerns stated, et-cetera."

"We appreciate your extensive commentary and hope that the new draft indeed addresses your concerns."
-----

We have decided to reject the proposal as it currently stands but are optimistic about it's future.

The People's Republic of Newkanatek recognizes the need for a reduction of military aggression.... However, as our great nation has it's own non-aggression policies in line with this draft and we pride ourselves on our contributions humanitarian aid having donated over 500 containers of Newkanatek Gold potatoes this year alone, we believe that this draft does not provide enough provisions for the use of weapons of mass distraction such as nuclear armement.

Having been settled on what was once known as the Buccaneers Atol, a former nuclear test bed for the United States of Americia, we know all too well the effects of allowing unchecked nuclear testing merely because a nation believes they are at an imminent threat of mutually assured distraction. As such, our scientists now must work tirelessly to avoid further mutations in our Newkanatek Gold potatoes as a result of improperly cleaned nuclear fallout. As such, we demand that such a treaty include provisions holding nations who have previously neglected cleanup of spent arms both in the name of testing and in conflict be held accountable by the international community to ensure that such cleanups do not fall on the shoulders of other nations who must bare the consequences.

If this draft is modified to include provisions compelling nations to clean up their messes both past and present, The People's Republic of Newkanatek will vote in favor of this draft.

"I must say that I do sympathise with this concern -- it was not too long ago that the Eternal Union was forced to deploy its own military forces to the nation of Langong after it was subject to an intense nuclear bombing campaign by none other than the Unified Authority of Kraven. Admittedly, I have not particularly paid much attention to the ongoings over in Varathron but my understanding is that the quarantine established by the Union-led coalition remains active even to this day."

"We do not believe, however, that this matter is one which shoudl be addressed in this specific resolution. While it is indeed important to address, the scope of this resolution is purely to prohibit member nations from waging aggressive wars on each other; cleaning up nuclear waste caused as a result of past wars, whether aggressive or not, seems clearly outside of this scope. Addressing unrelated subjects within this proposal's umbrella, if anything, may result in even more opposition, including from nations which oppose such cleanup provisions, meaning that neither protection can be enacted at all."

"I find, in any case, that this is largely moot regardless, as 'Nuclear Disaster Response Act' -- incidentally included in the rationale for the said quarantine, a matter on which I had been consulted -- requires member nations to make a good faith effort to clean up after nuclear disasters, and even includes provisions for assistance from World Assembly committees in this regard. Overall, I sympathise with the concern, but do not see it as relevant for this speciic resolution, especially considering that the matter is already largely addressed by existing World Assembly law."

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

[Tigrisia]

While we applaude the goal of that convention, we believe that it is unnecessary to define both acts of war and aggression, as aggression does not necessarily need acts of war. We believe that such a convention should not be limited to acts of war but should also include the threat of using force.

Also, we would like to add a clause that defines Crimes against peace as any action of an individual that plans, prepares, initiates or commits any acts contrary to this resolution. Those acts shall be illegal in all member states and seen as a severe crime and therefore be punished similarly as murder and other grave crimes.

[The Ice States]

While we applaude the goal of that convention, we believe that it is unnecessary to define both acts of war and aggression, as aggression does not necessarily need acts of war. We believe that such a convention should not be limited to acts of war but should also include the threat of using force.

Also, we would like to add a clause that defines Crimes against peace as any action of an individual that plans, prepares, initiates or commits any acts contrary to this resolution. Those acts shall be illegal in all member states and seen as a severe crime and therefore be punished similarly as murder and other grave crimes.

"Thank you, both of these concerns should be addressed."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

A note soaked in wolf blood has been left at the door of the Ice States office in WAHQ.

"No."

[Tigrisia]

Thank you for addressing our concerns.

We would like to bring up several further recommendations.

First of all, we recommend to drop the liability for de jure leaders. Including them may make people liable that have no responsibility for the aggressive act. Imagine a leader of a nation, who is detained in the course of a coup, while the conspirators start a war of aggression. This person would still be liable, even though they could do nothing to prevent the war.

Secondly, we recommend to replace "crime against humanity" with "atrocity". While it is commonly understood that crimes against humanity are only widespread or systematic attacks against the civilian population, atrocities include, apart from crimes against humanity also genocide and war crimes.

Lastly, one could specify that the jurisdiction also includes any ship or aircraft that are registered in a nation.

In the name of the Tigrisian Delegation

Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Lead Diplomat of the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly

[The Ice States]

Thanks for the comments. Genocide is a crime against humanity; including war crimes is likely too broad, the invasion of Ukraine for example would be legal as the Ukranian military has a record of war crimes _{(as, of course, does Russia)}. As to "de jure" that has been removed.

(IC)

A note soaked in wolf blood has been left at the door of the Ice States office in WAHQ.

"No."

Why?

[Simone Republic]

Thanks for the comments. Genocide is a crime against humanity; including war crimes is likely too broad, the invasion of Ukraine for example would be legal as the Ukranian military has a record of war crimes _{(as, of course, does Russia)}. As to "de jure" that has been removed.

(IC)

A note soaked in wolf blood has been left at the door of the Ice States office in WAHQ.

"No."

Why?

You're not prying our nuclear weapons out of our cold, dead, hands.

[The Ice States]

Thanks for the comments. Genocide is a crime against humanity; including war crimes is likely too broad, the invasion of Ukraine for example would be legal as the Ukranian military has a record of war crimes _{(as, of course, does Russia)}. As to "de jure" that has been removed.


Why?

You're not prying our nuclear weapons out of our cold, dead, hands.

You can still have nukes, you just can't use them to wage wars of aggression.