[DRAFT] Universal Declaration Limiting Conscription

[Berhakonia]

Category: human rights
Strength: moderate

To the General Assembly,

AFFIRMING the right to clear conscience of all citizens of WA-compliant states,

PROTECTING the right to neutrality and self-determination of all individuals,

RECOGNIZING the vagueness and ineffectivenes of World Assembly Resolution #255 in enforcing these rights, and;

TAKING into consideration the criticisms put forth by World Assembly Resolution #129,

UPHOLDING the responsibility of the General Assembly to guarentee these rights,

DEFINES:

I. Conscription as the mandatory enlistment of individuals in active armed service,

II. Selective service as the mandatory registration of individuals in reserve service or for future conscription,

III. Armed forces as any standing force, national or otherwise, intended primarily for participation in any armed conflict between states, governments, or societies, excluding police, paramedics, independent doctors or volunteer paramilitaries,

MANDATES the following provisions:

I. LIMITS the number of conscripts in the armed forces, during peacetime, to 15% of the SUITABLE adult population, or less, and;

Ia. PERMITS national governments to set their own definitions for military suitablity,

II. LIMITS the registration of SUITABLE adults into the selective service to 35% of the aforementioned population, or less, and GUARENTEES a variation of clause Ia to this provision,

III. PROHIBITS the coercion of volunteers through deceptive means, threats to life endangerment of the individual-in-question, the individual's family or otherwise, false clauses, brainwashing, or bribery,

IIIa. Propaganda, deceptive or otherwise, does not fall under this category,

IIIb. Grants, loans, or other social benefits do not fall under this category,

IIIc. Reduction of prison sentence or guarentee of citizenship do not fall under this category,

IV. Provides an exclusionary clause to articles I and II for WA-compliant governments currently engaged in hostilities with non-WA members.

V. Provides an exclusionary clause to articles I and II for nations who may require addditional manpower to combat natural disasters, famine, virus outbreak, or other man-made emergencies.

Hereby enacts the Universal Declaration Limiting Conscription and holds all WA-compliant states to the provisions herein.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Why do you hate small nations? In wars small nations usually need to mobilize close to their entire adult population for war effort (not all of them as soldiers, obviously) to have any hope against a large nation that can get away with mobilizing just 1% of theirs.

[Berhakonia]

OOC: Why do you hate small nations? In wars small nations usually need to mobilize close to their entire adult population for war effort (not all of them as soldiers, obviously) to have any hope against a large nation that can get away with mobilizing just 1% of theirs.

That kind of logic has unspeakable repercussions when dealing with NS nations (some having in-lore populations close to the trillions). If a nation with a trillion units in reserve declares war on a nation with a billion units, is the latter justified in conscripting further billions more to level the playing field? Only from a utilitarian and geopolitical viewpoint, but this line of thinking is anathema to the standard of civil rights that the WA was founded on, and disregard for these rights will definitely set the WA on a dangerous and precarious path. A nation cannot be justified in destroying homes and families for the sake of national integrity, there is a point where the localized damage becomes so widespread that it outweighs the collateral damage of losing a war. If an individual soldier is patriotic enough to the survival of his country, then let him enlist voluntarily. Otherwise, the delegation of Berhakonia believes that WA-compliant nations must respect the individual freedoms of their citizens and their right free conscience and autonomy within the bounds of the law.

[Araraukar]

OOC post. Feedback as requested.

That kind of logic has unspeakable repercussions when dealing with NS nations (some having in-lore populations close to the trillions).

And some have in-character (means same as in-lore) populations of only a few thousands or even less. That was kinda my point.

If a nation with a trillion units in reserve declares war on a nation with a billion units, is the latter justified in conscripting further billions more to level the playing field? Only from a utilitarian and geopolitical viewpoint

...and wars are played out with consent from both sides on the forums, but that has nothing to do with anything either. My question stands. Why are you trying to limit small nations' defensive capabilities? Like, what is the actual problem you're trying to solve with the limitation?

but this line of thinking is anathema to the standard of civil rights that the WA was founded on, and disregard for these rights will definitely set the WA on a dangerous and precarious path.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with this. WA was not founded on "standard of civil rights", it was founded because the RL UN told Max (the site owner) to stop using the RL UN name and symbols. You can read about it here.

A nation cannot be justified in destroying homes and families for the sake of national integrity

...what? Why would homes and families be destroyed? Do you mean war damages and casualties? They're going to happen (unless the entire war is fought virtually between unkillable AIs or something), no matter the size of the army. And if you're making small nations unable to defend themselves, MORE homes and families are going to suffer, not fewer.

there is a point where the localized damage becomes so widespread that it outweighs the collateral damage of losing a war.

Depends. If a nation is fighting for its survival or - in the case of fighting a war against a non-WA nation, possibly for the survival of its people in general (non-WA nations don't have to abide by the genocide ban resolution, after all), there might not BE a point where "damages from this war are not worth it".

If an individual soldier is patriotic enough to the survival of his country, then let him enlist voluntarily.

If that was your point, then you're contradicting your own ideals with the 10% allowance. But were you aware of this resolution? It is the replacement of the one that #129 repealed. It seems to cover your concern for people's right to choose whether they get conscripted (do also note that getting conscripted and getting drafted are not 100% the same thing) against their will to partake a war (and also note that "active military service" does not equal "getting sent into the front lines"), and makes parts of your proposal duplication, possibly even contradiction.

the delegation of Berhakonia believes

And talks to thin air, apparently. Do you know what "OOC" means?

Now, if you want to continue on this, even knowing GA #132 exists, I suggest changing your draft so that it only applies to conflicts between member nations (takes away the problem about defending against genocidal wars with non-WA nations) AND that it only applies to war-time drafts (first of course check that there isn't one already in existence), that is, war-time conscription of new recruits (because there are nations out there that have larger percentage of their adult population at least technically part of the military than just 10%, and they would likely vehemently resist the WA trying to reduce their military size), AND so that the limitation only applies if the nations in question have similar sized populations. To use your own example, if one nation has trillion soldiers and the other has billion, with each military being 10% of their population, then the restrictions wouldn't apply to the smaller nation, because their entire population is the size of the bigger nation's military and they should be allowed to draft more. One way to word that might be that if one nation's military's size equals or exceeds the other's entire population, then the restrictions are off for the smaller nation.

It's not an easy subject, people have heated opinions on any restrictions on military, and unless you are very knowledgeable about it, at least from RL examples, modern and historical, it can be very difficult to legislate on.

[Berhakonia]

Snip

It seems you are quite knowledgeable on your history, the founding of the WA was quite a momentuous accomplishment in the name of civil liberties, and a definant move by Max Barry to oppose the bureaucratic tyranny of the (real world organization which shall not be named for reasons relating to copyright). The delegation of Berhakonia believes it is paramount for the current WA to preserve this legacy of civil freedoms.

Resolution #132 concerns conscientious objection and presents a very narrow threshhold of allowance for military exemption based on those grounds. It does not come close to addressing the issue of unnecessary mass-conscription, and, furthermore, subjects any and all conscientious objectors to intrusive psychological evaluation (Article III, 3a) and complete scrutiny (3b). The delegation of Berhakonia has determined no conflict between the provisions of this proposal and those of Resolution #132, and it is not within our interests to contradict past resolutions.

(You make a good point about non-WA nations violating this law, and I will edit the OP to make an exclusionaey clause for any nation who finds itself at war with a non-member of the WA)

(Also, don't get your pp in a sling about OOC . IC is fun)

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Why do you hate small nations? In wars small nations usually need to mobilize close to their entire adult population for war effort (not all of them as soldiers, obviously) to have any hope against a large nation that can get away with mobilizing just 1% of theirs.

Could you imagine if the Finns were only allowed to mobilize 10% of their of their adult population in WW2 against the Soviets?

[Berhakonia]

OOC: Why do you hate small nations? In wars small nations usually need to mobilize close to their entire adult population for war effort (not all of them as soldiers, obviously) to have any hope against a large nation that can get away with mobilizing just 1% of theirs.

Could you imagine if the Finns were only allowed to mobilize 10% of their of their adult population in WW2 against the Soviets?

Finland fielded just under 10% of its total population in the Winter War (340,000 vs 3,700,000). Total population =/= total adult population, I get it, but that's why I included a clause for selective service in the event of war.

[The Hazar Amisnery]

does provision I. still apply if it an emergency and I need more soldiers?

[Berhakonia]

does provision I. still apply if it an emergency and I need more soldiers?

Natural disaster energencies or armed insurrection emergencies?

[Berhakonia]

I've bumped the conscription limit from 10% to 15% and the selective service cap from 25% to 35%. I have also provided exclusionary clauses for natural or man-mand disasters and the event of hostilities between WA and non-WA nations.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Why do you hate small nations? In wars small nations usually need to mobilize close to their entire adult population for war effort (not all of them as soldiers, obviously) to have any hope against a large nation that can get away with mobilizing just 1% of theirs.

Could you imagine if the Finns were only allowed to mobilize 10% of their of their adult population in WW2 against the Soviets?

OOC: I'm not sure why nation size should give nations a pass. If the population isn't willing to fight, then it seems distinctly unjust and extremely anti-democratic to make them fight for a system they won't volunteer to defend.

The author is proceeding under an unusual premise that conscription is bad if it exceeds certain percentages of the population. If conscription is a moral wrong, it is just as bad to conscript one percent as one hundred percent. If the argument is that conscription is a moral concern that needs to be limited, the proposal misses the mark. If the proposal proceeds on the idea that mass conscription is harmful to nations rather than people, then it is not clear why a resolution is needed, as the problem is self-limiting: nations that harm themselves with mass conscription will either fail or stop when it becomes unsustainable. There is no argument that conscription is harmful to the international community, so the moral angle seems more likely.

[Berhakonia]

Could you imagine if the Finns were only allowed to mobilize 10% of their of their adult population in WW2 against the Soviets?

OOC: I'm not sure why nation size should give nations a pass. If the population isn't willing to fight, then it seems distinctly unjust and extremely anti-democratic to make them fight for a system they won't volunteer to defend.

The author is proceeding under an unusual premise that conscription is bad if it exceeds certain percentages of the population. If conscription is a moral wrong, it is just as bad to conscript one percent as one hundred percent. If the argument is that conscription is a moral concern that needs to be limited, the proposal misses the mark. If the proposal proceeds on the idea that mass conscription is harmful to nations rather than people, then it is not clear why a resolution is needed, as the problem is self-limiting: nations that harm themselves with mass conscription will either fail or stop when it becomes unsustainable. There is no argument that conscription is harmful to the international community, so the moral angle seems more likely.

The delegation of Berhakonia realizes that, conscription, as a moral evil, cannot be abolished across the entire WA overnight. This would be an unfeasible request to demand from an organization composed of a large number of anti-disarmament nations. Instead, the Berhakli delegation recognizes the importance of compromise in the role of shifting the Overton window toward any given cause, and proposes a steady decrease to conscription sizes in hopes of eventually abolishing the practice worldwide. This proposal, if allowed to pass into legislation, will not do away with conscription, in its entirety, however it will spare many from the cruel institution of selective service, and will set forth a precedent in the right direction.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm not sure why nation size should give nations a pass. If the population isn't willing to fight, then it seems distinctly unjust and extremely anti-democratic to make them fight for a system they won't volunteer to defend.

The author is proceeding under an unusual premise that conscription is bad if it exceeds certain percentages of the population. If conscription is a moral wrong, it is just as bad to conscript one percent as one hundred percent. If the argument is that conscription is a moral concern that needs to be limited, the proposal misses the mark. If the proposal proceeds on the idea that mass conscription is harmful to nations rather than people, then it is not clear why a resolution is needed, as the problem is self-limiting: nations that harm themselves with mass conscription will either fail or stop when it becomes unsustainable. There is no argument that conscription is harmful to the international community, so the moral angle seems more likely.

The delegation of Berhakonia realizes that, conscription, as a moral evil, cannot be abolished across the entire WA overnight. This would be an unfeasible request to demand from an organization composed of a large number of anti-disarmament nations. Instead, the Berhakli delegation recognizes the importance of compromise in the role of shifting the Overton window toward any given cause, and proposes a steady decrease to conscription sizes in hopes of eventually abolishing the practice worldwide. This proposal, if allowed to pass into legislation, will not do away with conscription, in its entirety, however it will spare many from the cruel institution of selective service, and will set forth a precedent in the right direction.

OOC: This was all OOC because it was responding to an OOC comment.

What exactly is the value in stopping only some conscription, then? How is that a functional compromise? It doesn't accomplish anything and doesn't move policy goals towards a functional endpoint.

[Berhakonia]

The delegation of Berhakonia realizes that, conscription, as a moral evil, cannot be abolished across the entire WA overnight. This would be an unfeasible request to demand from an organization composed of a large number of anti-disarmament nations. Instead, the Berhakli delegation recognizes the importance of compromise in the role of shifting the Overton window toward any given cause, and proposes a steady decrease to conscription sizes in hopes of eventually abolishing the practice worldwide. This proposal, if allowed to pass into legislation, will not do away with conscription, in its entirety, however it will spare many from the cruel institution of selective service, and will set forth a precedent in the right direction.

OOC: This was all OOC because it was responding to an OOC comment.

What exactly is the value in stopping only some conscription, then? How is that a functional compromise? It doesn't accomplish anything and doesn't move policy goals towards a functional endpoint.

Stopping some conscription is still leagues better than stopping no conscription, human liberties can still be preserved to a limited degree. A series of small requests continuously inching an individual toward a certain goal will always have a higher chance of effectiveness than an immediate and extreme demand that compromises the personal values of said individual. The Slavery Abolition Act in Britain was precipitated by the Slave Trade Act, which, itself, was precipitated by a series of efforts to limit the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, if you want a real world example.

[Outer Sparta]

Yet another conscription related proposal. Wonder if it'll be the same fiasco as the other drafts.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This was all OOC because it was responding to an OOC comment.

What exactly is the value in stopping only some conscription, then? How is that a functional compromise? It doesn't accomplish anything and doesn't move policy goals towards a functional endpoint.

Stopping some conscription is still leagues better than stopping no conscription, human liberties can still be preserved to a limited degree. A series of small requests continuously inching an individual toward a certain goal will always have a higher chance of effectiveness than an immediate and extreme demand that compromises the personal values of said individual. The Slavery Abolition Act in Britain was precipitated by the Slave Trade Act, which, itself, was precipitated by a series of efforts to limit the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, if you want a real world example.

Ooc: compromise resolutions block effective legislation. Repeals of compromises reset the starting positions. This would be true if amendments or legislating in repeals could occur. Not under the GA paradigm.

[Tsaivao]

Against this for both IC and OOC reasons. It is difficult to have a position of allowing some conscription when the entire moral argument is that conscription is bad and must be stopped. If we can't outright banish conscription, then why are we here? It would be much more fruitful to just ban unsuitable people (children, elderly, physically or mentally handicapped, etc) from being conscripted in any nation's military. Outright banning all conscription as you have probably figured out won't happen any time soon, and I personally don't want to support legislation that just wants to dip its toes in the water