[PASSED] Rights of Neutral States

[Damanucus]

For the benefit of the representative from Arstrotzka, and everyone else who has joined the debate, allow me to simplify this resolution for you. (And to the ambassador from Sciongrad, if I bally this up anywhere, please feel free to correct me.)



This goes without saying, hopefully. But, just for your sakes: not everyone will be involved in a war. The World Assembly understands this, and wishes to respect it.



So, in short, if you're wishing to remain uninvolved in a conflict, then you're a neutral state. This does not mean that all nations that aren't involved are neutral; those who have not made clear an intention to remain neutral in a conflict are not covered under this definition.




To clear this up, if you are directly part of the fight, you are a belligerent. If you aren't, then you aren't. You have soldiers in the field, then you are part of the war.



Belligerent forces cannot cross borders into a nation that has declared itself neutral. They are not part of the battlefield, and hence cannot be used as one. They also cannot be used as a recruitment station, planning point, supply station, launch pad, prisoner-of-war camp or armaments transport trail. In return, though, residents of a neutral state cannot join a belligerent's forces, or provide a belligerent force with weapons or armour. Doing so invalidates their neutrality. Similarly, they can only strike up a fight with belligerents if they cross the border, and even then, only to remove them from the nation's borders (which means they stop as soon as they cross back over); fighting for any other reason invalidates their neutrality.

There are a couple of other things that nations can do as well, but, as detailed in the above clause, they are discussed in Clause 5.



So belligerents cannot fight with the people of a neutral state, be it by bombing them, shooting at them, or even throwing a punch in the name of war. (Well, that last one may be a little iffy...). They cannot cross through a neutral state for any reason, except where otherwise allowed, or recruit/conscript from a neutral state. They cannot blockade or restrict the trade of a neutral state, or send POWs into a neutral state hoping that they be caught (which ends up forcing the neutral state being used as a POW camp, which directly violates their neutrality). In short, belligerents cannot do anything that would, either directly or indirectly, violate a nation's neutrality. (Basically, it stops bully tactics: "You won't do it yourself, so I'll make you do it." That ends because of this statement.)



These are the exceptions. If a soldier walks in accidently, they must swear under their breath and head back for the border (the first part's optional). A wounded ship floats in, they can be repaired (but nothing more, so no restock of weapons, no upgrade of combat systems, no take on fresh sailors, just patch up the holes), but must leave as soon as it is seaworthy (and they must do it with all speed, because they are not supposed to be there under regular circumstances). They may have diplomats there, as long as there is reason not related to the war itself (except I think to broker peace, is that right, Sciongrad?). Escapees can stay there, as can repatriates with consent.



This is the most confusing part of this resolution, but, in layman's terms, if two nations make a military treaty, the details of this resolution need to be an explicit part of the treaty; they cannot be conveniently left off or ignored.

I hope this will clarify things for everyone.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

is what I'd say, but given my vow to stay single, Miss Orman, I'll just say that, it's exactly how we understood the resolution to be.

Flattered though I am by your offer, but, your vows notwithstanding, my attractions lay somewhere else...

The very lesbian
Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[The Akashic Records]

6. Member nations that form military alliances with any non-member nation must make full compliance with the provisions of this resolution by that ally a term of the alliance

Im questioning the legality of it, forcing WA control on non WA nations (is this not a form of Metagaming?), but for this reason alone, I voted against it.

Its a close one though.

Not directly, no. It states that member states are the ones to make those provisions, not the WA. There's the resolution On Female Genital Mutilation, which does more or less the same thing.

Flattered though I am by your offer, but, your vows notwithstanding, my attractions lay somewhere else...

The very lesbian
Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I'm married to my job already, I doubt I could make time for much of anyone, which was the reason for the vow in the first place.

[Normlpeople]

Not directly, no. It states that member states are the ones to make those provisions, not the WA. There's the resolution On Female Genital Mutilation, which does more or less the same thing.

Thats a thin line, as we are bound by the WA resolution to do so.

As far as the "genital mutilation", I wouldn't say its a good example, as it "Insists" we criminalize the practice, it does not demand it as this current one does.

[Economa Incorporated]

A wounded ship floats in, they can be repaired (but nothing more, so no restock of weapons, no upgrade of combat systems, no take on fresh sailors, just patch up the holes), but must leave as soon as it is seaworthy (and they must do it with all speed, because they are not supposed to be there under regular circumstances).

Just reading through the summary and thought-

What enough sailors have be incapacitated that sailing the ship is incredibly difficult or improbable? New sailors cannot be flown, driven, or shipped into the neutral state, and to wait for the old ones to get better could take a while, hindering their ability to leave with speed. The old sailors could be deported, but the ship would perhaps be forfeit? The same thing could be considered with fuel. If the ship doesn't have the required fuel to get home, could it be provided or purchased? Another point- If the fleet that wishes to destroy said ship under repairs is waiting just outside the territory of the neutral state, waiting for the target they lost, sending it out unarmed would be suicide. In that case, why spend resources repairing it, if it's just going to be sent to it's death?

The proposal has a lot of good intentions, but based on what I read from it and the summary, there would be a lot of real-life scenarios that just wouldn't fit, and would force decisions on the neutral states.

[The Akashic Records]

Thats a thin line, as we are bound by the WA resolution to do so.

As far as the "genital mutilation", I wouldn't say its a good example, as it "Insists" we criminalize the practice, it does not demand it as this current one does.

Yes, thin as it is, diplomatic pressure or other legal, peaceful means, could include alliance agreements. It is up to the member state whether or not to enter into agreement with the alliance, and again, these are the rights of neutral states, as well as their obligations in order to stay neutral. Or does the ambassador prefer to deal with nations that would not acknowledge the sovereignty of nations that claim and act in neutrality?

What enough sailors have be incapacitated that sailing the ship is incredibly difficult or improbable? New sailors cannot be flown, driven, or shipped into the neutral state, and to wait for the old ones to get better could take a while, hindering their ability to leave with speed.

In regards to injured sailors, they can be aided by medical assistance as per the provisions of Humanitarian Transport.

The old sailors could be deported, but the ship would perhaps be forfeit? The same thing could be considered with fuel. If the ship doesn't have the required fuel to get home, could it be provided or purchased? Another point- If the fleet that wishes to destroy said ship under repairs is waiting just outside the territory of the neutral state, waiting for the target they lost, sending it out unarmed would be suicide. In that case, why spend resources repairing it, if it's just going to be sent to it's death?

Once the warships becomes too heavily damaged, the crew becomes "accidental strays who intend on leaving immediately" or "casualties being repatriated with both belligerent sides’ consent". If they decide to not repair their ships, because the enemy could very well be waiting for them outside, then they need only abandon it, and again, can become "accidental strays who intend on leaving immediately" or "casualties being repatriated with both belligerent sides’ consent". Of course, the ship would be forfeit, but would you rather forfeit just the ship, or the ship and the crew? Ships can be rebuilt, but people are often difficult to convince.

[Economa Incorporated]

Thanks. That's kinda what I figured. So the case oftentimes may not be one of repair offered, but rather
"take our ship, and get us outta here!"

Does that affect the neutrality of countries? They could then be still used as escape route. The conflicting party could view it as sheltering the enemy, and giving them safe passage home. My personal view on neutrality is that is you don't want it to fall apart, you have to stay out of it completely. Because as soon as you get that ship to safety, the other side isn't gonna care that the same could apply to them. They just see the ship fleeing into that port, and the sailors getting to safety, and take that as the "neutral" country aiding the wounded ship. And what if the neutral country doesn't want a half-destroyed warship in their harbor? They'd then have to take the responsibility of towing and scuttling, repair, or dismantlement, wouldn't they?

Again, I thinks it's a great idea, but not necessarily practical.

What is the fleet pursuing the wounded ship follows them into the "neutral grounds." The neutral state would have a full right to destroy those ships. By the resolution, that's the end of the story. But in practicality, they're not going to just let it go.



EDIT: Could towing of the wounded ship by the owning country from within the Neutral territory fall under the humanitarian transport thing?

[The Martian American States]

Belligerents must not conscript people with a neutral’s nationality into their service, unless that neutral state agreed before the war that those people also hold the belligerent’s nationality;

Belligerents must not interfere with neutrals’ international trade, except as any other WA law specifically allows

While we, of the Martain American States, support such ideas(after all we fought a war against the damned British back in 1812 over similar circumstances), we cannot support this resolution. While the ideals may be lauditory, there is no method of enforcement or holding belligerant nations accountable. I can just see someone telling Kaiser Bill that he cannot violate a neutral nation's rights without a show of force, or at least some warships to back up the declaration.
Excelsior
Amb. Philo Sherman

[Velika Zeta]

After reading, re reading and then re re reading the proposal, Nikola Amatic, WA Ambassador of Velika Zeta decides to pitch in his thoughts:


"As a nation we are thoroughly against this! We believe that "neutrality" is a perception that can not truly exist. A state may declare it self neutral in a conflict but who knows what that states intelligence is doing on what front. I would further like to add that many "neutral" states stay neutral in conflict to benefit themselves at the expense of warring countries to the extent that when one side is on it's knees the so called "neutral" state may jump on the winning sides bandwagon. Finally the main reason we wish to vote against this is similar to our first point, no state is truly neutral in conflict, there is always something to gain. Arming one side with weapons would be breaching neutrality by our standards, but not the WA's. As would a trade Embargo. We just do not believe any state can truly be utterly 100% neutral in a war near them."

Ambassador, I always appreciate it when ambassadors take the time to read through resolutions thouroughly prior to making their decision. However, I cannot agree that this perception of neutrality is correct. It is perfectly acceptable for a nation to refrain from entering conflicts at a time that may not be in their interest. Simply because some ambassadors think that it is a "right" of nations to exert their influence over others is patently false. Furthermore, the instances of "breaching neutrality," as you mentioned, are not permitted under the resolution. Neutral nations are not permitted to sell armaments, as detailed in clause 3c, and embargoes and subversive intelligence collecting, etc. are covered under clause 3b. So for all intents and purposes, a nation not only can be neutral, but it is required to be if it declares that it is. If you find you disagree with me, feel free to ask for further clarification, and I'll try to assuage your concerns to the best of my abilities.

"Noble ambassador. Although your thoughts were written out strongly and coherently the Grand Socialist Military still fears that the WA simply can not hope to discover who is aiding who if they are doing so secretly. What if a "neutral" nation decides to help fund a Gun Runner who then sells weapons independently to one or more nations on the neutrals nation front? The WA can not hope to discover all these ploys and tricks. Ours is a country that does not believe someone can be 100% totally and utterly neutral in a war near them."

[The Martian American States]

Ambassador, I always appreciate it when ambassadors take the time to read through resolutions thouroughly prior to making their decision. However, I cannot agree that this perception of neutrality is correct. It is perfectly acceptable for a nation to refrain from entering conflicts at a time that may not be in their interest. Simply because some ambassadors think that it is a "right" of nations to exert their influence over others is patently false. Furthermore, the instances of "breaching neutrality," as you mentioned, are not permitted under the resolution. Neutral nations are not permitted to sell armaments, as detailed in clause 3c, and embargoes and subversive intelligence collecting, etc. are covered under clause 3b. So for all intents and purposes, a nation not only can be neutral, but it is required to be if it declares that it is. If you find you disagree with me, feel free to ask for further clarification, and I'll try to assuage your concerns to the best of my abilities.

"Noble ambassador. Although your thoughts were written out strongly and coherently the Grand Socialist Military still fears that the WA simply can not hope to discover who is aiding who if they are doing so secretly. What if a "neutral" nation decides to help fund a Gun Runner who then sells weapons independently to one or more nations on the neutrals nation front? The WA can not hope to discover all these ploys and tricks. Ours is a country that does not believe someone can be 100% totally and utterly neutral in a war near them."

That good sir is perfectly understandable business. Why shouldn't a neutral be allowed to make some sort of profit from other nation's foolishness. As long as the neutral if selling to all sides of the conflict, without predudice, then it is simply a matter of trade. By jingo, our own merchants and traders are known to deal with all sorts on Mars, although the Belgians do refer to our merchants as cockroaches(ie they're everywhere underfoot).
Excelsior,
Amb. Philo Sherman

[The Akashic Records]

OOC: Since GR already answered the question of enforcement, I'm gonna leave the answer here in case no one read the first page.

So what exactly is protecting these neutral nations from belligerent nations, other than the international community saying "naughty"?

OOC: This is actually a much deeper question than you may realize. You're basically asking what mechanism enforces international law. The laws of war and humanitarian law are not easily enforceable, unlike say international environmental regulations. This is because, while environmental regulations often pit the state against industry (with the state obviously having more power), laws like these try to regulate states themselves. It's very difficult to regulate states under an anarchic system. The international system is considered an anarchy because there's no central governing structure, at least none with a standing military capable of forcing all other states to do things.

But it's not impossible. The simplest answer I can give you is that these laws are self-executing. They represents norms. The very nature of norms is that they are these abstract ideals that states abide by simply because it's considered appropriate to abide by them, or because following the norms serves some interest of the state. I think you'd be more convinced by the interests argument than the appropriateness argument. So, a state would follow the rules of this resolution because it would want others to respect its neutrality in the future. If State A violates State B's neutrality in War 1, then there's no reason why State C can't violate State A's neutrality in War 2. So if State A wants to be able to claim neutrality in War 2, it will respect the neutrality of State B in War 1.

I do realize that clause #4 says they're allowed to defend themselves, but if the belligerent nation then declares war on them, where exactly goes the line? When does the neutral nation lose its neutrality, if it's practically involved in a full-scale war?

If a state does declare war on a neutral state, then the neutral state can defend itself without losing neutrality. I think the difficult with understanding why that is arises because of how war has changed since 1904 (when the concept of neutrality was first codified in the Hague Conventions). Nowadays, wars are almost always defensive. But back then, wars of aggression were still a thing. So there was a clear difference between a state defending itself through warfare, and a state acting as an aggressor. An aggressor could never claim the rights of neutrality.

Perhaps we can be a little creative here and put in some minimum conditions for when a state is still allowed to claim neutrality, while being engaged in a defensive war. We can say that the defense measures should be the minimum measures necessary to effectively defend themselves. This means that they could push back an army, but they can't go engage in regime change or gain territory, spoils or anything like that. If the international community considers the measures to go beyond pure defense, then the state would no longer be able to enjoy the rights of neutrality. Again, this would be enforced through the normative mechanism.

[Levivania]

man the voting is close, this is one of the closest ever.

[The Akashic Records]

Thanks. That's kinda what I figured. So the case oftentimes may not be one of repair offered, but rather
"take our ship, and get us outta here!"

Does that affect the neutrality of countries? They could then be still used as escape route. The conflicting party could view it as sheltering the enemy, and giving them safe passage home. My personal view on neutrality is that is you don't want it to fall apart, you have to stay out of it completely. Because as soon as you get that ship to safety, the other side isn't gonna care that the same could apply to them. They just see the ship fleeing into that port, and the sailors getting to safety, and take that as the "neutral" country aiding the wounded ship.

If they are knowingly trying to exlpoit the neutral state in such a way, the neutral state possesses the right to drive them out of their borders with reasonable force. That is not to say that they can't just stage the act of driving them away, but that's a matter for the belligerents' intelligence, and effort on the neutral state to stay neutral.

And what if the neutral country doesn't want a half-destroyed warship in their harbor? They'd then have to take the responsibility of towing and scuttling, repair, or dismantlement, wouldn't they?

Again, I thinks it's a great idea, but not necessarily practical.

Repair, no, unless the ships are of significant interest to the technological advancement of the neutral state, and even then, they'd need to wait for the hostilities to subside before doing any such thing. Dismantlement, maybe. Though, by that time, it would probably have become an unsalvageable wreck.

What is the fleet pursuing the wounded ship follows them into the "neutral grounds." The neutral state would have a full right to destroy those ships. By the resolution, that's the end of the story. But in practicality, they're not going to just let it go.

They're not to destroy those pursuing, only push them back if they pose any danger to the neutral state, but in worst case scenarios, they might have to. They can make port, but not have any material and materiel aid from the neutral state. To knowingly enter into neutral territories in hopes of safe passage is in violation of the state's neutrality by belligerents, and would be treated as such, at least, in our interpretation. Unless they stray into neutral territories, they will be treated as belligerents looking to violate a neutral state's neutrality. Again, belligerents' intel and neutral state's effort.

EDIT: Could towing of the wounded ship by the owning country from within the Neutral territory fall under the humanitarian transport thing?

Humanitarian transport does not cover materiel.

[The Great Weald]

Just a quick question:

What would happen if a belligerent (nation A) has troops already stationed in a neutral (nation B) and a timetable for their withdrawal in x amount of years was already in place prior to any conflict taking place involving said belligerent (nation A). Whould that mean nation A would have to withdraw from the neutral country B immediately regardledlss or would they be able to justify their presence under the previous negotiated timetable?

[The Akashic Records]

Just a quick question:

What would happen if a belligerent (nation A) has troops already stationed in a neutral (nation B) and a timetable for their withdrawal in x amount of years was already in place prior to any conflict taking place involving said belligerent (nation A). Would that mean nation A would have to withdraw from the neutral country B immediately regardless or would they be able to justify their presence under the previous negotiated timetable?

Seeing that the resolution itself has stated that "the (neutral) state shall not allow any belligerent’s forces to cross or remain within its lands, excepting as clause 5 of this resolution lists, to launch attacks from or through its territories, or to recruit therein, nor shall it be legal for its people to serve belligerents as mercenaries", I'd say that Nation A must withdraw their troops, or be chased out by Nation B, because Nation B "may use reasonable force to repel belligerent forces that are violating its neutrality".

[The Seafield Islands]

Yay! I can't believe that voting ends in two hours and the YES votes are slightly MORE than the NO votes. I hope this won't change soon. For those who didn't vote yet, PLEASE VOTE FOR this.

[Meritocratic States]

Hilda Thorstein, Chief WA Representative for the Meritocratic States

After reviewing this proposal with the rest of the delegation and of the Federal Council, the collective head of state of my country, the Meritocratic States has decided to CHANGE it's vote from AGAINST to FOR.

[Normlpeople]

This ambassador will simply ignore the resolution, as we do many others. My current alliances are already formed and this will not be added to any.

[Sciongrad]

Belligerents must not conscript people with a neutral’s nationality into their service, unless that neutral state agreed before the war that those people also hold the belligerent’s nationality;

Belligerents must not interfere with neutrals’ international trade, except as any other WA law specifically allows

While we, of the Martain American States, support such ideas(after all we fought a war against the damned British back in 1812 over similar circumstances), we cannot support this resolution. While the ideals may be lauditory, there is no method of enforcement or holding belligerant nations accountable. I can just see someone telling Kaiser Bill that he cannot violate a neutral nation's rights without a show of force, or at least some warships to back up the declaration.
Excelsior
Amb. Philo Sherman

Ambassador, you are right that this resolution has no mechanism through which to force member nations to respect neutral rights (except for the work of our despicable little friends in the compliance commission), but considering the limited space, we relied solely on good faith participation. Furthermore, neutral states are permitted to retaliate if any of their rights are abridged, so long as they're obeying the obligations of neutral states, which I think may be suitable. We understand your Excellency had a bit of a spat with the British over some free trade issues a while back, and we wrote this resolution in part to prevent such scenarios. Seeing as it's passed, however, I simply wish that the dastardly British will learn to respect these rights, lest they face the consequences.

[The divided]

The 10000 islands is to thank.

This ambassador will simply ignore the resolution, as we do many others. My current alliances are already formed and this will not be added to any.

Too bad you can't. WA resolutions are automatically binding.

[Dellin]

The 10000 islands is to thank.

This ambassador will simply ignore the resolution, as we do many others. My current alliances are already formed and this will not be added to any.

If you could just ignore whatever you pleased, what would be the point of having an assembly that votes or ever voting against anything? You could just pass everything, then let whoever wants to follow it do so, and opt out yourself. That's not exactly how international conventions work.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If you could just ignore whatever you pleased, what would be the point of having an assembly that votes or ever voting against anything? You could just pass everything, then let whoever wants to follow it do so, and opt out yourself. That's not exactly how international conventions work.

They're free to ignore the resolution, so long as they accept the consequences of doing so. For instance, you now don't see them as reasonable, which will affect your interactions with them from now on.

[The Parras]

The only thing I don't like about this resolution is that the neutral state cannot sell weapons withe the beligerent states. The economy of the neutral state may depend on this trade, and it's unfair that because of another country's conflicts, you cannot trade with it.

[Sense makers]

Personally this act is ridiculous and or pointless

[Sciongrad]

Personally this act is ridiculous and or pointless

It's neither, your Excellency. A nation may argue that because of its inherent imperialistic and/or aggressive nature, it should be allowed to declare war on whomever they want (which is an argument I personally find ridiculous, but I digress) - that is at least arguing against the proposal in terms of policy. But to insinuate that something so fundamental to international law and something so significant to the delicate science of international conflicts is pointless is the definition of silliness. Perhaps in good time the apparent outrage over this resolution will subside.

[Normlpeople]

They're free to ignore the resolution, so long as they accept the consequences of doing so. For instance, you now don't see them as reasonable, which will affect your interactions with them from now on.

We hardly consider it unreasonable to consider forcing WA policies on non WA affiliated nations, especially allies, to be a bad thing. Especially since our neighbors are largely responsible, through such an alliance, for a large part of our security. They are both non-WA militant nations, and quite frankly, to enforce clause 6 would not be in my nations best interest. This is why our government has decided not to do so.

If it wasn't for that clause (which I am convinced is illegal anyway), We may have voted for it.