[MOOT - SEE GA#652] Repeal GA#132 "Military Freedom Act"

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 1,070
Word count: 176

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: I have... a concern.
OOC: Indeed I do. Many countries have military service but I can't think of a single one which requires a cooling-off period for newly-recognised conscientious objectors. Replacement coming sharp-ish.

Repeal "Military Freedom Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#132

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #132 “Military Freedom Act” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Concerned that Articles III.4 and III.4a of GA#132 permit members to require those who develop conscientious objections in "combative military dut[ies]" which they have neither intention nor inclination to serve in to retain those duties for six months (or, if "the term for which the duty was originally assigned" is shorter, that term) before they can be moved to a non-combat role, a counterproductive objective by any stretch of the imagination,

Further unnerved that, where member states exercise their Article III.2a right to compel conscientious objectors to serve in "non-combative military or non-military duties," Article III.4 does not make clear how long they must serve in their new "non-combative duty," potentially leading to them serving for far longer in their non-combat role than their period of military service would have been for no good reason, and

Hopeful that more robust protections of the right to conscientious objection will be enacted after the passage of this repeal...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#132 "Military Freedom Act."

[Tinhampton]

Reserved for old drafts.

Noting that Article III.4 of GA#132 allows members to require those of their conscientious objectors "in a combative military duty to continue said duty for a pre-determined, finite period of time prior to reassignment to a non-combative duty," and that its Article III.4a requires this period to be no longer than "six months [or] the term for which the duty was originally assigned,"

Therefore concerned that:

1. where member states exercise their Article III.2a right to compel conscientious objectors within their military's ranks to serve in "non-combative military or non-military duties," Article III.4 does not make clear how long they must serve in their new "non-combative duty," potentially leading to them serving for far longer in their civilian duty than their military duty would have been for no good reason,
2. where the remaining period of combative military service is not six months in length, Article III.4a does not clarify which of its two permitted transition periods should be enforced by members, and that
3. GA#132 permits members to require conscientious objectors in combat roles which they have neither intention nor inclination to serve in to stay in those roles for an extended period of time anyway, a counterproductive objective by any stretch of the imagination, and

Hopeful that more robust protections of the right to conscientious objection will be enacted after the passage of this repeal...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#132 "Military Freedom Act."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would find this illegal for honest mistake. The following statement is false.

where the remaining period of combative military service is not six months in length, Article III.4a does not clarify which of its two permitted transition periods should be enforced by members

The text of the resolution is perfectly clear: "Such period shall exceed neither six months nor the term for which the duty was originally assigned". The only way one would be able to escape that would be to make a distinction without difference between a claim of no clarification and a lack of clarity. Accepting the former would permit practically all claims that something is not clear, regardless of veracity.

[Tinhampton]

Aye, cap'n. Draft #1b up (claim about transition periods removed + some cutting down on flowery language).

[Tinhampton]

Still working on this - but I will not be submitting until widespread consensus exists that Right to Conscientious Objection (or some other replacement) is fit for purpose.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: We do not see the first argument as a bug, but a feature of the resolution. It is necessary to prevent sudden exoduses from military service. The six months is necessary to prevent the crippling of a nation's firepower without opportunity to figure out a path forward. Therefore, opposed.

We are also not convinced that the second argument is a flaw. Nations can may compel anyone to serve in non-combative roles, conscientious objector or not. If you intend to add a provision stating that conscientious objectors may not be compelled to help in any capacity, I will be strongly opposed to this. In a time of great crises anyone who does not wish to help their countrymen should be left rotting in the dungeons, not enjoying a life of luxury with their WA-mandated freedoms.

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: As I said elsewhere - would you rather want a slightly smaller, well-organised force or a fully-powered, distracted force? Or, dare I ask it, even a force that uses willing volunteers - or reserves? Yes, Army Reserves exist! I used to be in them back in the 80s!
You have also misunderstood my other concern with the Act - namely that it allows member states to make alternative service much longer than military service. Not that it allows alternative service at all.

[The Orwell Society]

I am for the repeal but not for a replacement.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Anderson: As I said elsewhere - would you rather want a slightly smaller, well-organised force or a fully-powered, distracted force? Or, dare I ask it, even a force that uses willing volunteers - or reserves? Yes, Army Reserves exist! I used to be in them back in the 80s!
You have also misunderstood my other concern with the Act - namely that it allows member states to make alternative service much longer than military service. Not that it allows alternative service at all.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: That other nations are so incompetent at managing their militaries does not make it an international concern, or our problem, or something to write international law to punish us on.

My point was that member states can make alternative service longer than military service for everyone else anyways. What's the point!

[Unibot III]

Percy popped a bottle of champagne, causing several aides to dive under the table.

"Relax, it's only champagne," he said, pouring himself a refreshment for today's debate.

"I would applaud the honoured ambassador's work on this resolution," said Percy, "and I would add that there is an additional flaw with its language. If a conscription period ends (for example, if the war ends), the conscientious objector is expected to still continue out their term, presumably back at base - which is sloppy bureaucratic logic. The World Assembly shouldn't be trapping peaceniks into unnecessary national service however much I dislike peaceniks. I would argue this objection should not face the prospect of a rules violation as there is a distinction worth noting between the term that one is conscripted to serve and the actual mechanism of conscription which can be recalled before the end of the expected term."

"Damn the peaceniks!" a voice cried out and the rest of the Unibotian delegation replied "Hear! Hear!" in unison.

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: Don't worry, Justin: once we get the replacement over the line, alternative service will be longer than military service for nobody. (:P)

[Tinhampton]

I like to move it, move it
I like to move it, move it

[Starman of Stardust]

"Full support. Conscription is an abhorrent practice and should be restricted as much as possible while allowing the defense of non-aggressor states."

"We find, however, that what we believe to be the target's gravest flaw is not mentioned -- specifically, that wars of aggression initiated by the objector's nation ally are not considered 'wars of aggression', and accordingly member nations can, to their hearts' content, force civilians to support unjust mass murder campaigns, as long as said campaigns were not initiated specifically by the objector's nation."