[DRAFT] Convention Against Military Aggression

[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."

"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.

Suddenly stumbling over himself, Chief Delegate Lot responds hastily. "It's... Well, I'm just saying that..."

Standing at the podium, he clenches his hands, takes a deep breath, and thinks through his thoughts: "If a member nation attacks a non-member, that non-member can temporarily, yet definitively, end the attack simply by joining the World Assembly which, as we all know, has a notoriously lax entry process. This could be detrimental to any strategic advantage the member may have, including the element of surprise, troop positioning, and other related aspects."

[The Ice States]

"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.

Suddenly stumbling over himself, Chief Delegate Lot responds hastily. "It's... Well, I'm just saying that..."

Standing at the podium, he clenches his hands, takes a deep breath, and thinks through his thoughts: "If a member nation attacks a non-member, that non-member can temporarily, yet definitively, end the attack simply by joining the World Assembly which, as we all know, has a notoriously lax entry process. This could be detrimental to any strategic advantage the member may have, including the element of surprise, troop positioning, and other related aspects."

"Thank you for the commentary, Ambassador. However, we do not view it as harmful for member nations to have increased difficulty in waging wars of aggression against non-member nations; if anything it is an additional, if unintended, benefit. If your concern is non-member nations attacking a member nation and then entering the World Assembly to avoid retaliation, Section 3a applies on a per-nation basis, and as such that member nation would still not be restricted from defending itself."

"While indeed, non-member nations can wage wars of aggression at will, inasmuch as member nations still have full right to defend themselves and the only type of wars restricted are those of pure aggression, we do not see the harm. So-called 'preemptive strikes' are demonstrably harmful to international peace."

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

[The Ice States]

Bumping for any further comments!

[Tigrisia]

As wars between nation-states have negative impacts on the civilian population of involved nations, we recommend to drop clause 2b and change clause 2 to the following:

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

We also recommend to clarify that measures based on resolutions of the Security Council do not fall under this resolution.

For the delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly,
Brigadier General Michael Beier
Military Attachee

[The Ice States]

As wars between nation-states have negative impacts on the civilian population of involved nations, we recommend to drop clause 2b and change clause 2 to the following:

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

We also recommend to clarify that measures based on resolutions of the Security Council do not fall under this resolution.

For the delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly,
Brigadier General Michael Beier
Military Attachee

"Our nation has no objections to this measure, however we are concerned that a significant portion of the World Assembly would object to such a provision and oppose if it were included. We expect that the proposal as written will already be controversial among more warlike member nations, and we are concerned about making it even more so."

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

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

This could still use more comments, any thoughts?

[The Ice States]

"Given the lack of commentary, it appears as though we have finally mastered the perfect proposal. Are there any objections to this classification being made? If not, celebrations -- not to mention submission -- will commence shortly."

~Samuel Rothmann,
WA Mission Intern Staffer,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Second Sovereignty]

"Absolutely no support so long as Section 3.b.i remains as-written. The World Assembly is not and must not be the final arbiter of what can be considered grounds for humanitarian intervention - it does not have, at this time, right, a remotely sufficient standard thereof." Raxes clicked, pausing a moment. "I suppose I could have made that more clear in our initial commentary. But it remains the case."

[The Ice States]

"Absolutely no support so long as Section 3.b.i remains as-written. The World Assembly is not and must not be the final arbiter of what can be considered grounds for humanitarian intervention - it does not have, at this time, right, a remotely sufficient standard thereof." Raxes clicked, pausing a moment. "I suppose I could have made that more clear in our initial commentary. But it remains the case."

"Would your concern be addressed by replacing that provision with a definition of crimes against humanity independent of existing World Assembly resolutions?"

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

[Second Sovereignty]

"Would your concern be addressed by replacing that provision with a definition of crimes against humanity independent of existing World Assembly resolutions?"

"So long as it is open for discussion," Raxes paused, then clicked to himself, "for a little while at least, then, yes. Of course, assuming it ultimately meets a reasonable standard."

[The Ice States]

Bumping to note that a definition has indeed been added.

[The Ice States]

Bumping again for comments!

[Greater North-America]

Am I to understand that this proposal outlaws all forms of war except self defense, and that a war of self defense cannot take place until the defending nation is attacked? In other words, are preemptive first strikes forbidden?

Secondly, what about wars of survival? What if a nation is forced to invade another in order to defend itself, economically or otherwise? For example, say we have two neighboring fictional nations, Lilliput and Brobdingnab. Suppose that Lilliput cannot grow grain domestically, and is therefore obliged to import grain from her neighbor, who abounds in golden fields. Now further suppose that the government of Brobdingnab suddenly imposed an embargo on exporting foodstuffs, thus stopping Lilliput's grain supply. And what if, by some unfortunate circumstances, Lilliput is incapable of importing grain from elsewhere and is therefore faced with the dilemma, of either utilizing her military might to seize Brobdingnab's wheat fields, or letting her populace starve? Shall we take away the Lilliputians' right to survive as a nation? Even further, what if Brobdingnab instituted the embargo on some nefarious purpose, specifically in order to harm Lilliput in some way? There was no military aggression. There technically was no blockade. And yet, the effect is the same, is it not? It would be an attack against the nation just as sure and just as devastating, if not more so, as if they had just lobbed missiles over the border. Worse of all, if the Lilliputians were to attack Brobdingnab, should this resolution be adopted, they would be considered the aggressors. That hardly seems fair. I do concede, however, that certain economic legislation could make this particular example a moot point, but I am of the opinion the principle still stands.

I had a third critique but forgot it, so I will leave this on one final note: I personally am of the opinion that banning military aggression is like prohibiting alcohol, in that it is highly ineffective and only drives people to evade the law. I believe we should permit nations to militarily attack each other, but only within certain limits, similar to how the sale of alcohol is permitted but heavily regulated. I am fairly sure the WA already has a myriad of resolutions concerning international law on armed conflict, but perhaps we should focus on expanding, strengthening, and enforcing the limitations on armed conflict, rather than attempt to pass a proposal that, despite its noble intentions, will have a million unforseen consequences.

edit: reason: correcting auto correct

[The Ice States]

Hello, thanks for the comments!

Am I to understand that this proposal outlaws all forms of war except self defense, and that a war of self defense cannot take place until the defending nation is attacked? In other words, are preemptive first strikes forbidden?

That is correct.

Secondly, what about wars of survival? What if a nation is forced to invade another in order to defend itself, economically or otherwise? For example, say we have two neighboring fictional nations, Lilliput and Brobdingnab. Suppose that Lilliput cannot grow grain domestically, and is therefore obliged to import grain from her neighbor, who abounds in golden fields. Now further suppose that the government of Brobdingnab suddenly imposed an embargo on exporting foodstuffs, thus stopping Lilliput's grain supply. And what if, by some unfortunate circumstances, Lilliput is incapable of importing grain from elsewhere and is therefore faced with the dilemma, of either utilizing her military might to seize Brobdingnab's wheat fields, or letting her populace starve? Shall we take away the Lilliputians' right to survive as a nation? Even further, what if Brobdingnab instituted the embargo on some nefarious purpose, specifically in order to harm Lilliput in some way? There was no military aggression. There technically was no blockade. And yet, the effect is the same, is it not? It would be an attack against the nation just as sure and just as devastating, if not more so, as if they had just lobbed missiles over the border. Worse of all, if the Lilliputians were to attack Brobdingnab, should this resolution be adopted, they would be considered the aggressors. That hardly seems fair. I do concede, however, that certain economic legislation could make this particular example a moot point, but I am of the opinion the principle still stands.

That would in fact be prohibited. I don't see why Lilliput wouldn't have any other place from which to import grain than Brobdignab; likewise, it seems unrealistic that Brobdignab has an absolute monopoly on grain such that it cannot be sourced from anywhere else, and if that nation is actively trying to stop grain from being imported into Lilliput from other nations then that would be a blockade and therefore an act of war under Section 1.

I had a third critique but forgot it, so I will leave this on one final note: I personally am of the opinion that banning military aggression is like prohibiting alcohol, in that it is highly ineffective and only drives people to evade the law. I believe we should permit nations to militarily attack each other, but only within certain limits, similar to how the sale of alcohol is permitted but heavily regulated. I am fairly sure the WA already has a myriad of resolutions concerning international law on armed conflict, but perhaps we should focus on expanding, strengthening, and enforcing the limitations on armed conflict, rather than attempt to pass a proposal that, despite its noble intentions, will have a million unforseen consequences.

I'm struggling to see what these unforseen consequences are. I highly doubt that a nation would wage a war of aggression purely out of spite against this resolution passing, when doing so will likely lead that nation to incur fines and sanctions. Even so, I believe that preventing a singular war of aggression, regardless of how many more are not deterred, is enough to make this resolution a significant benefit.

[Starman of Stardust]

The first act of Lindelas Pakilator in her new capacity was of course to take the stage in the Headquarters. She was somewhat nervous, but the tasks she was up to were going to be important ones, to bring peace across the Assembly as per Union values.

"Greetings, my fellow representatives from member nations across the multiverse. I come here to speak as the new Ambassador of the Democratic Stellar Union. It is in tragic circumstances that I speak here. For those who may not be familiar with the Union's work in the World Assembly, the Union has participated in this Assembly for what is now around two years; throught it, its projects were almost entirely spearheaded by the great Hayden Stubbe. It was them who brought such legislation as Resolution #660 to the books. However, in the last months Stubbe suffered from a certain severe illness which kept them away from the World Assembly for the most part; apart from intermissions allowing for occasional engagement with the institution, proposals such as this fell by the wayside. The mission of the Eternal Union, which had long collaborated with us in the Assembly through the Ice States, took up guardianship of this proposal in the meantime, which we wish to thank them for."

"Unfortunately, as of three days ago Stubbe was brought to their death by the illness. In the emergency, a decision was made to form a new mission, led by myself. Its goals are now to pass three pieces of legislation in the honour of Hayden Stubbe. The first is this proposal, Convention Against Military Aggression, of the Eternal Union has returned custody to ourselves. The second is Promoting Iternational Peace, which will form a framework to promote peace not only between the nations of this Assembly, but also worldwide between those nations which do not join this assembly. Finally, is Prohibition of Conscription, a straight-forward prohibition of conscription across the World Assembly."

"We eagerly await the feedback of delegations on all of these issues. We ask, however, that each proposal be evaluated separately; the outcome of one does not imply the passage, or failure, of another."

_{[Ooc: Obviously all events in this post are completely fictional.]}

[Nassau Pirate Haven]

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

We detest agreeing with Simone Republic over anything at all but we must agree here. Nuclear weapons are the modern power currency and stroke-of-the-pen abolition of first use is the most dangerous and naive approach to deterrence imaginable. Abolishing first use is a thin justification to prevent those without nuclear weapons from obtaining them and placing themselves on even footing with world powers.

While the world's scholars on the topic will have phrased this better than we here, briefly, if I am a tiny nation without a lot to lose, and the nations of the first world - with a lot to lose - decide to bomb us. First strikes are illegal in this situation, the question is what is to be done to the lawbreaking first world nation. The other surviving first world nations counterattacking the nation that did the bombing is automatically disincentivized, because the game matrix here looks like this

Code: Select all

----------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
                | End all life on earth | Allow destroying small nations |
----------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
Retaliate       |       -195            |      +/-0                      |
Don't retaliate |       -1              |      -1                        |
----------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+


More simply, if you don't retaliate, you don't end all life on earth (avoding a huge penalty, 195 nations) and you send a message it's ok to destroy small nations (small penalty, 1 nation guaranteed impacted).

It's best to just not penalize the initiating nation at all, because they've already demonstrated they can use nuclear weapons to get their way and no one will dare retaliate. Sanction? Bomb. Dare to even wag a finger? Bomb.

When small nations - whose existence is invariably threatened regardless - are willing to strike first if the situation demands it, and we look at the situation where a small nation pushed too far actually uses them, things look very different.

Code: Select all

----------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
                | End all life on earth | Allow destroying small nations |
----------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
Retaliate       |       -195            |      +/-0                      |
Don't retaliate |       -194            |      +1                        |
----------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+


In this scenario, we destroy all 195 nations, or 194, and given we want to prevent this from happening it's a near guarantee the initiating nation is destroyed, so mutually assured destruction is preserved, unlike the first scenario.

In other words, the only way deterrence works for everyone is if we do not outlaw first strikes, or we prevent every small nation from obtaining nuclear weapons creating an international caste system (that is incentivized, mechanically, to degrade and eventually result in nuclear war). The small nation is destroyed in every scenario, but the only scenario where larger nations are destroyed as well - and thus, the only situation where larger nations have a mechanical (regardless what your promises and intentions are) incentive to avoid nuclear war - is if we do not outlaw first use.

We support this legislation generally aside from this.