[DRAFT] Promoting International Peace

[Starman of Stardust]

Believing peace to be the most important goal of worldwide civilisation, not only due to the wholly unnecessary death and destruction caused by war but also as it is the only effective means for society to collaborate in its improvement of the world;

Cognisant of the great influence the World Assembly may have in striving towards this goal, ensuring not only a gesture of goodwill that member nations are to refrain from aggression towards non-members, but also in ensuring that non-members themselves refrain from active aggression; and

Recognising the possibility of non-compliance with this resolution, yet believing that the existence of a framework to codify member nations' obligations towards world peace, along with the deterrence of even some unnecessary bloodbath, outweighs whatever minor administrative costs are needed to enforce such legislation;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force.

1. Definitions: 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. Continued military occupation or blockade, where conducted against the will of the targeted member nation, as well as declaration of war, shall each be considered acts of war. A crime against humanity is a widespread, ongoing act intended to attack or otherwise destroy a civilian population.
   
   
2. Aggression: Neither the World Assembly nor any member nation shall perform, threaten, instigate, or assist any act of war against any non-member nation, subject only to Section 3. Any violation of this mandate constitutes a crime of aggression, which shall itself be classed as a heinous crime and a crime against peace. An individual shall be liable for the crime of aggression if that individual utilised a position of leadership to personally determine a member nation's perpetration of a violation of the said mandate.
   
   
3. Exceptions: Regardless of this resolution's other mandates, Section 2 shall not prohibit the provision of assistance to, instigation of, threatening of, or performance of, the following acts, although this shall not prevent the World Assembly from separately addressing, restricting, or prohibiting the said acts:
   
   1. Armed action which (i) is taken by a member nation to defend against an act of war against that or any other nation, where the said act violates World Assembly law; (ii) targets only those nations which performed, instigated or assisted the said act of war; (iii) uses no more force than would be proportionate to the severity of the said act of war; and (iv) does not interrupt any period of the de facto absence of substantial armed conflict between the nations in question, including the one subject to the said act of war; and
      
      
   2. Humanitarian intervention, which the polity performing such intervention can conclusively show is (i) essential for the halting of a crime against humanity; and (ii) performed in the most limited manner necessary to halt the said crime against humanity, and prevent the resumption of crimes against humanity.
   
   
4. Enforcement: Each member nation must enforce the strongest possible sanctions on all non-humanitarian trade with any member nation that fails to comply with Section 2, or non-member nation that fails to comply with Section 2 as if it were a member nation. Member nations with a substantial ability to prevent or halt an act of war which violates this resolution have an obligation to take all steps in their ability, whether omissions or positive actions, to do so. The last sentence does not require any member nation to itself perform or assist an act of war.

Notes _

• Yes, this is designed to coerce compliance from non-member nations.
  
  
• Outside of IAO fines, no sanctions are imposed by this upon non-member or member nations that do not enforce Section 4b. This is for two reasons. Firstly, coercing non-member nations to also sanction nations that do not sanction non-compliers reduces the incentive for such non-sanctioners to also refrain from engaging in wars of aggression. Even a nation that does not enforce such sanction will lose all (or most) of its trade with non-member nations if it engages in a war of aggression. Secondly, I would like to avoid a circular "Nations sanctioned for not sanctioning nations which do not sanction nations which do not sanction nations which do not sanction nations which engage in a war of aggression". I believe that the current mechanism is still effective, as non-member nations are forced to choose between losing their trade with a few nations which engage in a war of aggression, and losing their trade with all member nations -- most rational nations will choose the latter, as there are presumably far more nations in the World Assembly than nations which wage wars of aggression.
  
  
• Other relevant draft: "Ban on Wars of Aggression".

[Starman of Stardust]

Recognising that, with the repeal of "Rights and Duties of WA States", including its provisions protecting war, writ large, the World Assembly now has the authority to prohibit unjust mass murder campaigns based in pure aggression,

Noting that preventing such mass murder campaigns will save the lives of millions of both brave patriots and ordinary, innocent civilians,

Seeking to finally make this a reality,

The World Assembly enacts as follows _

1. No member nation may engage in armed attack of any other nation, subject to Section 2.
   
   
2. If a nation engages in any action or lack of action designated by standing World Assembly law as a war crime, act of genocide, crime against humanity, or heinous crime, or fails to comply with Section 1 in good faith, that nation shall not be protected by Section 1 regardless of whether it is a member of the World Assembly.
   
   
3. Each member nation must enforce the strongest possible trade sanctions on all non-humanitarian products with any member nation that fails to comply with Section 1, or non-member nation that fails to comply with Section 1 as if it were a member nation.
   
   
4. Each member nation must enforce the strongest possible trade sanctions on all non-humanitarian products with any member nation that fails to enforce Section 3 sanctions, or non-member nation that fails to enforce Section 3 sanctions as if it were a member nation.
   
   
5. Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.

[Comfed]

Member states are not even allowed to counterattack in self-defence?

[Starman of Stardust]

Member states are not even allowed to counterattack in self-defence?

"A nation which engages in a war of aggression against another nation is, by definition, non-compliant with Section 1, and thus loses its protection. We have added a provision to make this explicit."

[Yxnadalsoxl]

Member states are not even allowed to counterattack in self-defence?

I believe section 2 would allow it.

On another point, I believe it would be misguided to close all possibilities of peacekeeping within this single proposal. Something to the tune of "or as the WA may see fit in the future etc etc" somewhere.

[The Serendipitous]

The mammalian member of the Serendipitousian-World Assembly affairs, having been assigned this bill to discuss, enters the chambers as soon as the messengers went around informing people of its being set up in the large banquet hall - no doubt they chose one of the bigger rooms due to the likely controversy of the proposal.

"Ending all territorial, expansionist, and otherwise malevolent wars is certainly an interesting idea, but one that The Serendipitous cannot place itself behind. While we appreciate the nuanced writing, this bill fails to account for daily diplomatic instances that may very well lead to a rightful war. We foresee a possible future in which a war of galactic scales begins, as each non-member-nation becomes in violation of article 1, leading to nations to attack it, and as more and more nations get drawn in over this conflict, it exponentially grows in size. This must be avoided at all costs. That being said, we encourage all delegations to properly read the bill, and refer the Comfed delegation to clause two."

[Comfed]

That being said, we encourage all delegations to properly read the bill, and refer the Comfed delegation to clause two."

Oh, sorry, I must have missed the part of section 2 that in any way referenced self-defence. How foolish of me.

[Tinhampton]

I cannot support Articles 4-5 in any form. A quick once-over of the OOC FAQ therefore prevents me from supporting this. (Although it's worth noting that Rights of Neutral States features non-member compliance without sanction regimes!)

[Starman of Stardust]

Bump.

[Starman of Stardust]

Bump.

[Starman of Stardust]

Bumping this again!

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

"If you'd think this would promote international peace, then I have some snake oil to sell you."

[Bananaistan]

"Opposed. Here we have the war party once again trying to effectively abolish member states' domestic militaries. The obvious goal is to set up the WA as a military dictatorship and no one else will ever have the right to take military action."

[Starman of Stardust]

(IC)

"If you'd think this would promote international peace, then I have some snake oil to sell you."

"Deriving oil from living snakes is illegal in the Democratic Stellar Union, and I do not believe I am permitted as a member of the World Assembly mission to circumvent the First Law by being here in the Headquarters. Nonetheless, I - appreciate your offer."

"Opposed. Here we have the war party once again trying to effectively abolish member states' domestic militaries. The obvious goal is to set up the WA as a military dictatorship and no one else will ever have the right to take military action."

"I must say that I find the accusation that the Union is part of a 'war party' offensive and ungrounded in fact. The Union's mission since its formation has been specifically to advance the goal of peace and unity -- first across the various solar systems where it formed, and later in the World Assembly after the efforts of the late Hayden Stubbe. I admit that under Stubbe's mission the Union an...uncertain stance was maintained on the topic of international military forces, but this proposal as of now has no intentions to advance an international police or military force. If your mission still does not believe this, I would point to the wording implemented in Section 2 on request of the Tinhamptonian mission -- a notable opponent of international armed forces -- that 'neither the World Assembly nor any member nation' may conduct any prohibited wars of aggression."