[DRAFT] Convention Against Military Aggression

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Midlona]

1. Acts of war: 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.

"Does the author nation consider a declaration-of-war by one nation against another to be an 'act of war' under this definition?" The Midlonan Ambassador asks.

"Midlona fears the current language would classify a war declaration as a Section 2 threat, absent a 'willful use of armed force.'" She adds.

2. Aggression: Neither the World Assembly nor any member nation may perform, threaten, or assist any act of war against another member nation, subject only to Section 3.

"Midlona supports this resolution, pending assurance that a declaration-of-war satisfies the 'act of war' definition."

[The Ice States]

1. Acts of war: 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.

"Does the author nation consider a declaration-of-war by one nation against another to be an 'act of war' under this definition?" The Midlonan Ambassador asks.

"Midlona fears the current language would classify a war declaration as a Section 2 threat, absent a 'willful use of armed force.'" She adds.

2. Aggression: Neither the World Assembly nor any member nation may perform, threaten, or assist any act of war against another member nation, subject only to Section 3.

"Midlona supports this resolution, pending assurance that a declaration-of-war satisfies the 'act of war' definition."

"We do not believe that an act of war should include the act of threatening one, noting that self-defense is exempted under Section 3a. Could you give an example of where a declaration of war not being an act of war would cause problems?"

"On another note, this has been marked on last call; once this matter is addressed we intend to submit."

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

[Midlona]

"Beyond the problem of defying logic and plain language (that a declaration of war would not be an act of war), a nation which has had war declared on it should not have to wait until the declaring nation actualizes their declaration (which is more than a threat in our reading) with hostile force, lest the defending nation be casted as causing wars under the resolution's scheme." The Midlonan Ambassador says slowly, confused as to how this information could anything less than obvious.

[The Ice States]

"Beyond the problem of defying logic and plain language (that a declaration of war would not be an act of war), a nation which has had war declared on it should not have to wait until the declaring nation actualizes their declaration (which is more than a threat in our reading) with hostile force, lest the defending nation be casted as causing wars under the resolution's scheme." The Midlonan Ambassador says slowly, confused as to how this information could anything less than obvious.

"Thank you for the explanation, we have amended the definition to include declaration of war as an act of war. With that said, consider submission imminent."

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

[Republic of Mesque]

The WA is finally getting to the point of staging special military operations based on flawless definitions of aggression under the term “act of war”.
The Ice States and its bureaucrats, as per usual, have no qualms about their desire to send WA military personnel to be butchered, through future resolutions, under pretentious definitions of what constitutes or not aggression.
Effectively, this is what you always wanted: a chance for paramilitary death squads that get to spill rivers of blood to do the WA’s bidding - naively or hypocritically under the belief that it is banning wars and promoting world peace. When the unnamed WA bureaucratic lunatics have trouble deciding where an unequivocal first “act of war” lies, surely The Ice States diplomats will be the first to give their sentence. Will they make good judgement, then? Doubtful.
Great job, this is an amazing path to go through!

[The Ice States]

The WA is finally getting to the point of staging special military operations based on flawless definitions of aggression under the term “act of war”.
The Ice States and its bureaucrats, as per usual, have no qualms about their desire to send WA military personnel to be butchered, through future resolutions, under pretentious definitions of what constitutes or not aggression.
Effectively, this is what you always wanted: a chance for paramilitary death squads that get to spill rivers of blood to do the WA’s bidding - naively or hypocritically under the belief that it is banning wars and promoting world peace. When the unnamed WA bureaucratic lunatics have trouble deciding where an unequivocal first “act of war” lies, surely The Ice States diplomats will be the first to give their sentence. Will they make good judgement, then? Doubtful.
Great job, this is an amazing path to go through!

Have you read the very last sentence?

[Republic of Mesque]

The WA is finally getting to the point of staging special military operations based on flawless definitions of aggression under the term “act of war”.
The Ice States and its bureaucrats, as per usual, have no qualms about their desire to send WA military personnel to be butchered, through future resolutions, under pretentious definitions of what constitutes or not aggression.
Effectively, this is what you always wanted: a chance for paramilitary death squads that get to spill rivers of blood to do the WA’s bidding - naively or hypocritically under the belief that it is banning wars and promoting world peace. When the unnamed WA bureaucratic lunatics have trouble deciding where an unequivocal first “act of war” lies, surely The Ice States diplomats will be the first to give their sentence. Will they make good judgement, then? Doubtful.
Great job, this is an amazing path to go through!

Have you read the very last sentence?

While this resolution does not allow for direct intervention, surely you have the follow-up prepared. No?

[The Ice States]

Have you read the very last sentence?

While this resolution does not allow for direct intervention, surely you have the follow-up prepared. No?

I have no current draft which would establish military intervention to enforce this; nor do I intend to write such a resolution. Even if I were, you should judge this based on its own merits and not based on a hypothetical future proposal.

[Republic of Mesque]

While this resolution does not allow for direct intervention, surely you have the follow-up prepared. No?

I have no current draft which would establish military intervention to enforce this; nor do I intend to write such a resolution. Even if I were, you should judge this based on its own merits and not based on a hypothetical future proposal.

We judge based on the history and insistence about this topic.
While you can claim not wishing to pass military intervention, your resolution enables any of your pro-war faction’s proxies to do so.
We have treaded quite a path getting here. To claim that this shouldn’t be judged based on future resolutions doesn’t and shouldn’t make any sense.

[The Ice States]

How does it "enable" this "pro-war faction"? It doesn't even mention a WA army, except to say that it does not have one enforcing it.

[Republic of Mesque]

How does it "enable" this "pro-war faction"? It doesn't even mention a WA army, except to say that it does not have one enforcing it.

Here are the main questions:
Doesn’t 3a enable the WA and WA nations to provide “assistance to” “armed action” “to defend against an act of war”? The issue being… which WA bureaucrats get to decide who is defending and who is attacking? Sometimes, it isn’t so clear.
Is it desirable to leave this open for interpretation when the aggressor is not crystal clear? Doesn’t this clause then enable biases towards nations, which could be exploited in future resolutions?

[The Ice States]

How does it "enable" this "pro-war faction"? It doesn't even mention a WA army, except to say that it does not have one enforcing it.

Here are the main questions:
Doesn’t 3a enable the WA and WA nations to provide “assistance to” “armed action” “to defend against an act of war”? The issue being… which WA bureaucrats get to decide who is defending and who is attacking? Sometimes, it isn’t so clear.
Is it desirable to leave this open for interpretation when the aggressor is not crystal clear? Doesn’t this clause then enable biases towards nations, which could be exploited in future resolutions?

It does not ban it; that it is all it does. The WA has just as much ability to do this as it does in the status quo.

[The Ice States]

As a note, I had discussed some of the details of this with Tinfect just now and have decided to withdraw so as to allow a redrafting process to address some concerns raised by them; as a result, amendments have been effected particularly to Section 3a and parts of Section 2. Comments are still welcome.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The third clause proper should end in a colon, rather than a full stop, so as to better flow into the subclauses. Additionally, in 3(a), ‘which’, where it appears prior to ‘would violate this resolution’, should be removed; it is currently not grammatically correct. I remain in full support of this measure.”

[The Ice States]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The third clause proper should end in a colon, rather than a full stop, so as to better flow into the subclauses. Additionally, in 3(a), ‘which’, where it appears prior to ‘would violate this resolution’, should be removed; it is currently not grammatically correct. I remain in full support of this measure.”

"Thank you Ambassador, we have amended the draft to address these issues."

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

[The Ice States]

Any more comments?

[Fachumonn]

Any more comments?

Support as I don't feel the need to critique everything at this hour.

[Tigrisia]

Any more comments?

Full support.

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

[The Ice States]

Bump. I would be quite interested in pursuing this at some point in the near future.

[The Ice States]

This remains in progress!

[Nobith]

Nobith delegate Jane Shlem bounces her left leg. Unable to listen to the nonsense in the room. She sighs and taps on her ear-piece microphone. Autotranlating from the Nobith tongue:
"There are tyrants in the WA, marauder states, and fascists. The enact this bill would be to ostracize those nations."

Jane Shlem exhaules dropping her shoulders down. "There are states that are democratic, that love freedom, but believe freedom has a price. Then there are small states like Nobith. Nobith is a small city state binding herself to international security. To say that we should not attack member states will ostracize the former maurauder states. Then what will they do? Leave the WA and lose the regulations? Will we no longer have a forum to find some common ground? Now, what of the violent democrats and tyrannical terrorists who don't leave? Will they not forcibly integrate nations that leave because of such a bill?"

Jane Shlem takes off her glasses, "Nobith, as a non-violent city state cannot support this bill. This will remove the ability for police action against member states and drive a wedge between raiders and defenders. There will be no common forum if this were to pass and necessitate a bipolar multiversal order."

Jane shlem sits straight up.and looks across the large room filled with delegates.

[The Ice States]

Nobith delegate Jane Shlem bounces her left leg. Unable to listen to the nonsense in the room. She sighs and taps on her ear-piece microphone. Autotranlating from the Nobith tongue:
"There are tyrants in the WA, marauder states, and fascists. The enact this bill would be to ostracize those nations."

Jane Shlem exhaules dropping her shoulders down. "There are states that are democratic, that love freedom, but believe freedom has a price. Then there are small states like Nobith. Nobith is a small city state binding herself to international security. To say that we should not attack member states will ostracize the former maurauder states. Then what will they do? Leave the WA and lose the regulations? Will we no longer have a forum to find some common ground? Now, what of the violent democrats and tyrannical terrorists who don't leave? Will they not forcibly integrate nations that leave because of such a bill?"

Jane Shlem takes off her glasses, "Nobith, as a non-violent city state cannot support this bill. This will remove the ability for police action against member states and drive a wedge between raiders and defenders. There will be no common forum if this were to pass and necessitate a bipolar multiversal order."

Jane shlem sits straight up.and looks across the large room filled with delegates.

"Thank you for the commentary, Ambassador. I note that this is not the first resolution which would render a large number of tyrannical nations non-compliant; for example, the bans on genocide and war crimes. It also seems unlikely that large portions of nations would in fact leave the World Assembly in response to this; not only is there the benefit of universal recognition, but this very resolution would mean that member nation is now protected from war by other member nations."

"In any case, even if we accept that a large number of nations will indeed resign from the World Assembly should this pass, each war costs at least thousands, if not millions of lives, and if this resolution prevents a singular war of aggression, that is enough of a benefit to merit its passage."

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

Ooc: Welcome to the GA! As a note, if "raiders and defenders" refers to the NS practice of invading regions, as nice as it would be to ban that it does not fall under any GA resolution, as it concerns game mechanics.

[Bisofeyr]

Norde Lot, stepping into the chambers, glances down at the resolution beforehand, before cocking an eyebrow. "Under the provisions of this resolution, could a non-member seek asylum within the World Assembly if a member-nation were to attack it, until such a point that the member-nation had adequately retreated its forces from the concerned nation, at which point they withdraw from the World Assembly? I foresee potentially disastrous consequences by outright prohibiting war between member nations, as if the aforementioned scenario were to be allowed, it gives members a distinct disadvantage when going to war even with a non-member."

[The Ice States]

Norde Lot, stepping into the chambers, glances down at the resolution beforehand, before cocking an eyebrow. "Under the provisions of this resolution, could a non-member seek asylum within the World Assembly if a member-nation were to attack it, until such a point that the member-nation had adequately retreated its forces from the concerned nation, at which point they withdraw from the World Assembly? I foresee potentially disastrous consequences by outright prohibiting war between member nations, as if the aforementioned scenario were to be allowed, it gives members a distinct disadvantage when going to war even with a non-member."

"Could you clarify what disadvantage this would create? If the non-member attacks that member nation, this resolution does not restrict the member nation from responding or otherwise defending itself."

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