NATION

PASSWORD

[LAST CALL] Convention on Local Demilitarisation

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

[LAST CALL] Convention on Local Demilitarisation

Postby The Ice States » Sat Jan 13, 2024 6:51 pm

Global Disarmament, Mild. Character count: 5000.

Noting the effectiveness of demilitarised zones in reducing conflict; and

Believing that global standards for demilitarised zones would assure members that local demilitarisation is respected without resorting to militarism and aggression themselves, saving lives across the globe;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to its previous resolutions still in force.

  1. Demilitarised zones: Any two or more nations (hereinafter "signatories") may designate a "demilitarised zone" (hereinafter "zone") which they agree not to occupy, station military forces in, or otherwise use to conduct military efforts against each other. A "governed zone" is a zone under World Assembly or international jurisdiction to which all signatories are member nations. No part of this resolution authorises the World Assembly to unilaterally declare a demilitarised zone on member nation, non-member, or international territory.

  2. Violations: The acts prohibited in the below subsections are war crimes. The presence or activity in a zone of civilian law enforcement, or persons with protected status under World Assembly law, does not, ipso facto, violate either of the below provisions.

    1. No signatory may use a zone to conduct military efforts against another signatory. Such use shall implicitly terminate that zone, unless the signatories renew it or the act does not compel a military response from the targeted signatory.

    2. No territory may be the subject of a military attack if no military presence exists there or in its immediate surroundings with the capabilities and scope of mission to reasonably attempt a defence against that attack.

  3. Terms: The terms of a governed zone must define, in good faith so as to minimise ambiguity, (a) the extent of military and civilian presence allowed in the zone; (b) the territorial extent of the zone; (c) the extent to which signatories may exert jurisdiction over the zone; and (d) an impartial, peaceful means to resolve disputes between signatories about the zone or its terms. The World Assembly shall not recognise any demilitarised zone whose terms do not impose equal and reciprocal obligations, responsibilities and rights upon each signatory.

  4. Civilian reporting: Where a civilian seeks to access a zone in order to provide factual reporting on its status, and they are not using or intending to use such access to advance or facilitate military efforts (not including any political bias in their reporting), no member may deny them access to that zone. No part of this section prohibits such access from being conditional on military or other supervision of that civilian; however, such supervision must offer them the most freedom of movement within that zone possible without jeopardising their safety, any person’s privacy, or national security. Preventing the revelation of a violation of the terms of a demilitarised zone does not fall under national security.

  5. Enforcement: Personnel from the International Peacekeeping Force (hereinafter IPF) may be deployed to a governed zone by mutual consent of that zone’s signatories. Any signatory to a zone may revoke consent to this deployment following a good faith consultation on such revocation with any other signatories. No part of this provision permits the IPF to operate in a zone without the consent of any signatory thereto.

    1. The IPF may be authorised by resolution to conduct additional peacekeeping missions, and is funded by voluntary contributions from any willing donor. If such contributions cannot cover the IPF's operation, the General Accounting Office may provide the IPF with a ten-year, interest-free, renewable loan. IPF personnel must wear headgear, such as military-grade helmets, of a standardised light blue colour at all times when on duty.

    2. Personnel deployed under this section are tasked to (i) prevent military access to the zone, and ensure the evacuation of military personnel, equipment and supplies from it, where their presence violates its terms; and (ii) conduct routine inspections of the zone to monitor compliance with its terms. The IPF shall promptly publish the findings of each Section 5b.ii inspection it conducts, with appropriate redactions for personal privacy and national security. Personnel deployed under this section shall adhere to all resolutions regarding the rules of war, as they apply to member nations, and may not engage in armed hostility towards any member or non-member nation.

  6. Prosecution: Any act classed by World Assembly law as a war crime, crime against humanity, or crime against peace is recognised as a heinous crime. For the purposes of World Assembly law, genocide is a crime against humanity. Each member must prosecute those responsible for heinous crimes to the maximal extent reasonably possible under national and international law; no member may maintain any law intended to obstruct such prosecution.


Co-author: Russellshire
Last edited by The Ice States on Thu Apr 11, 2024 12:38 pm, edited 78 times in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13696
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Jan 13, 2024 6:56 pm

Unbased. There is no need to put this on a statutory footing for any reason other than to expand the IEC's powers, and there is no reason in this context to expand the IEC's powers when the member nations in question can further their co-operation in the relevant spheres.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sat Jan 13, 2024 6:59 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Unbased. There is no need to put this on a statutory footing for any reason other than to expand the IEC's powers, and there is no reason in this context to expand the IEC's powers when the member nations in question can further their co-operation in the relevant spheres.

Having signatories do it instead of a neutral entity would undermine the rationale stated in "Believing".
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
August Imperium
Envoy
 
Posts: 206
Founded: Dec 31, 2023
Ex-Nation

Postby August Imperium » Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:09 pm

(OOC)

First the IEC, now GA peacekeepers? How the conspiracy grows...

On a more topical note, in section 1, "occupy" doesn't seem to be a good term for troops stationed in a region. Germany was not occupying the Rhineland in 1936, and the definition is subjective- you might say that Russia is occupying Ukraine, or you might not. (I'm aware that there's no DMZ in Ukraine- just in general it's not a good word to use unless you define it). Furthermore, at present, so long as those soldiers are not "conduct[ing] military efforts against another signatory", they are perfectly fine to move troops into the region, which would allow a nation to prepare for an invasion, rescind the agreement establishing a DMZ, and invade. Needless to say, this would defeat the point of a DMZ. This was why the Rhineland and the Korean DMZ were demilitarised- to prevent soldiers from entering a region where they might then invade.

You could omit "occupy" and insert "station military forces in" instead.
Last edited by August Imperium on Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
THE AUGUST IMPERIUM

User avatar
Second Sovereignty
Envoy
 
Posts: 338
Founded: Jan 02, 2023
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Second Sovereignty » Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:32 am

OOC:
There's no need for this kind of law; Member-States can declare demilitarized zones without the World Assembly, and they definitely don't need the WA be stepping in for its own military occupation thereof. Also, until this draft includes language along the lines of 'forbids the World Assembly or any subdivision thereof from declaring a demilitarized zone independently of the nations whom it concerns', it's a non-starter.
Last edited by Second Sovereignty on Sun Jan 14, 2024 3:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
Minister of World Assembly Affairs of The Communist Bloc.
Puppet of Tinfect.
Raxes Sotriat, Envoy-Major to the World Assembly, Kestil, he/him
Masraan Olash, Envoy-Minor to the World Assembly, Alsuran, he/him
Maraline, Administrative Aide, Hanri, she/her


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.
Good Lord, I've barely made this Puppet and you want FACTBOOKS? Check again soon.

|||||||||||||||||#283||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Kenmoria
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 7908
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jan 14, 2024 2:35 am

(OOC: I’m not certain that this does anything. Where is the operative clause?)
Hello! I’m a GAer and NS Roleplayer from the United Kingdom.
My pronouns are he/him.
Any posts that I make as GenSec will be clearly marked as such and OOC. Conversely, my IC ambassador in the General Assembly is Ambassador Fortier. I’m always happy to discuss ideas about proposals, particularly if grammar or wording are in issue. I am also Executive Deputy Minister for the WA Ministry of TNP.
Kenmoria is an illiberal yet democratic nation pursuing the goals of communism in a semi-effective fashion. It has a very broad diplomatic presence despite being economically developing, mainly to seek help in recovering from the effect of a recent civil war. Read the factbook here for more information; perhaps, I will eventually finish it.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:24 am

August Imperium wrote:(OOC)

First the IEC, now GA peacekeepers? How the conspiracy grows...

On a more topical note, in section 1, "occupy" doesn't seem to be a good term for troops stationed in a region. Germany was not occupying the Rhineland in 1936, and the definition is subjective- you might say that Russia is occupying Ukraine, or you might not. (I'm aware that there's no DMZ in Ukraine- just in general it's not a good word to use unless you define it). Furthermore, at present, so long as those soldiers are not "conduct[ing] military efforts against another signatory", they are perfectly fine to move troops into the region, which would allow a nation to prepare for an invasion, rescind the agreement establishing a DMZ, and invade. Needless to say, this would defeat the point of a DMZ. This was why the Rhineland and the Korean DMZ were demilitarised- to prevent soldiers from entering a region where they might then invade.

You could omit "occupy" and insert "station military forces in" instead.

Second Sovereignty wrote:Also, until this draft includes language along the lines of 'forbids the World Assembly or any subdivision thereof from declaring a demilitarized zone independently of the nations whom it concerns', it's a non-starter.

This should be done; please let me know if it doesn't address the concerns!

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I’m not certain that this does anything. Where is the operative clause?)

Section 2, inter alia, declares violating a DMZ agreement a war crime.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Kenmoria
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 7908
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:21 pm

The Ice States wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I’m not certain that this does anything. Where is the operative clause?)

Section 2, inter alia, declares violating a DMZ agreement a war crime.

(OOC: I wouldn’t think that the World Assembly declaring something constitutes an operative clause without a mandate for member-nations to do anything about it.)
Hello! I’m a GAer and NS Roleplayer from the United Kingdom.
My pronouns are he/him.
Any posts that I make as GenSec will be clearly marked as such and OOC. Conversely, my IC ambassador in the General Assembly is Ambassador Fortier. I’m always happy to discuss ideas about proposals, particularly if grammar or wording are in issue. I am also Executive Deputy Minister for the WA Ministry of TNP.
Kenmoria is an illiberal yet democratic nation pursuing the goals of communism in a semi-effective fashion. It has a very broad diplomatic presence despite being economically developing, mainly to seek help in recovering from the effect of a recent civil war. Read the factbook here for more information; perhaps, I will eventually finish it.

User avatar
Stella Nera
Diplomat
 
Posts: 598
Founded: Sep 05, 2023
Ex-Nation

Postby Stella Nera » Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:24 pm

This could certainly help in peacekeeping, though since nations can set up demilitarized zones on their own i question the need for the WA to get involved
La Ferra Suprema Reigns Supreme over the vast lands of Stella Nera
A land where humanity is king, above god and devil alike. A blissful Utopia for Humanity, a horrible Dystopia for sentient robots.

Robots shouldn't have rights or citizenship;
Compromise on other non-human sapient entities is possible, with limitations, but not on these buckets of bolts. They should serve humanity and have absolutely no place in society other than as our servants. Think of the benefits of this. Plus, they would almost certainly overtake humanity if we gave them the chance, whether out of pure advanced abilities or malice, or worse, both. Think of humanity.

Humanity First!

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:22 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
The Ice States wrote:Section 2, inter alia, declares violating a DMZ agreement a war crime.

(OOC: I wouldn’t think that the World Assembly declaring something constitutes an operative clause without a mandate for member-nations to do anything about it.)

Ooc: Obviously prohibiting something is an operative clause; I don't believe there is any functional difference between declaring something illegal and prohibiting it. (NB: "Signatories", the entities performing the relevant acts in Section 2, are member nations.)
Last edited by The Ice States on Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Kenmoria
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 7908
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:35 pm

The Ice States wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I wouldn’t think that the World Assembly declaring something constitutes an operative clause without a mandate for member-nations to do anything about it.)

Ooc: Obviously prohibiting something is an operative clause; I don't believe there is any functional difference between declaring something illegal and prohibiting it.

(OOC: I disagree that the second clause prohibits anything. The second clause declare that the World Assembly will consider certain conduct to fall under the label of ‘war crime’. It does not prohibit member-nations from performing that conduct nor does it mandate that member-nations consider such conduct as being a ‘war crime’.

This is akin to the difference between these clauses: ‘Declares that wearing hats is a very bad thing’ and ‘Bans wearing hats’ or ‘Mandates that member-nations designate wearing hats as a very bad thing’. The first states an opinion, whereas the second and third require action based on that opinion. Of course, I replaced ‘war crime’ with ‘very bad thing’, but the negative label used is irrelevant to whether member-nations are required to do anything pursuant to that label.)
Hello! I’m a GAer and NS Roleplayer from the United Kingdom.
My pronouns are he/him.
Any posts that I make as GenSec will be clearly marked as such and OOC. Conversely, my IC ambassador in the General Assembly is Ambassador Fortier. I’m always happy to discuss ideas about proposals, particularly if grammar or wording are in issue. I am also Executive Deputy Minister for the WA Ministry of TNP.
Kenmoria is an illiberal yet democratic nation pursuing the goals of communism in a semi-effective fashion. It has a very broad diplomatic presence despite being economically developing, mainly to seek help in recovering from the effect of a recent civil war. Read the factbook here for more information; perhaps, I will eventually finish it.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:37 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
The Ice States wrote:Ooc: Obviously prohibiting something is an operative clause; I don't believe there is any functional difference between declaring something illegal and prohibiting it.

(OOC: I disagree that the second clause prohibits anything. The second clause declare that the World Assembly will consider certain conduct to fall under the label of ‘war crime’. It does not prohibit member-nations from performing that conduct nor does it mandate that member-nations consider such conduct as being a ‘war crime’.

This is akin to the difference between these clauses: ‘Declares that wearing hats is a very bad thing’ and ‘Bans wearing hats’ or ‘Mandates that member-nations designate wearing hats as a very bad thing’. The first states an opinion, whereas the second and third require action based on that opinion. Of course, I replaced ‘war crime’ with ‘very bad thing’, but the negative label used is irrelevant to whether member-nations are required to do anything pursuant to that label.)

Ooc: If something is a crime, it is necessarily illegal. Therefore declaring something a war crime indeed declares it illegal; and accordingly, it prohibits member nations from performing those acts.
Last edited by The Ice States on Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Kenmoria
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 7908
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:39 pm

The Ice States wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I disagree that the second clause prohibits anything. The second clause declare that the World Assembly will consider certain conduct to fall under the label of ‘war crime’. It does not prohibit member-nations from performing that conduct nor does it mandate that member-nations consider such conduct as being a ‘war crime’.

This is akin to the difference between these clauses: ‘Declares that wearing hats is a very bad thing’ and ‘Bans wearing hats’ or ‘Mandates that member-nations designate wearing hats as a very bad thing’. The first states an opinion, whereas the second and third require action based on that opinion. Of course, I replaced ‘war crime’ with ‘very bad thing’, but the negative label used is irrelevant to whether member-nations are required to do anything pursuant to that label.)

Ooc: If something is a crime, it is necessarily illegal. Therefore declaring something a war crime indeed declares it illegal.

(OOC: That holds true within member-nations, but not upon member-nations. It relies on an invisible clause.)
Hello! I’m a GAer and NS Roleplayer from the United Kingdom.
My pronouns are he/him.
Any posts that I make as GenSec will be clearly marked as such and OOC. Conversely, my IC ambassador in the General Assembly is Ambassador Fortier. I’m always happy to discuss ideas about proposals, particularly if grammar or wording are in issue. I am also Executive Deputy Minister for the WA Ministry of TNP.
Kenmoria is an illiberal yet democratic nation pursuing the goals of communism in a semi-effective fashion. It has a very broad diplomatic presence despite being economically developing, mainly to seek help in recovering from the effect of a recent civil war. Read the factbook here for more information; perhaps, I will eventually finish it.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:41 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
The Ice States wrote:Ooc: If something is a crime, it is necessarily illegal. Therefore declaring something a war crime indeed declares it illegal.

(OOC: That holds true within member-nations, but not upon member-nations. It relies on an invisible clause.)

How can it be legal for a member nation to do something explicitly declared a crime by the WA?
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Stella Nera
Diplomat
 
Posts: 598
Founded: Sep 05, 2023
Ex-Nation

Postby Stella Nera » Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:43 pm

I feel like this proposal is is somewhat of an attack on national autonomy, you've already created a WA global police force, we didn't need that and we certainly don't need a WA global military. Assuring the neutrality of such an entity is not possible as its members will have to be made up of member nations whose loyalty to said nation cannot be discredited completely in most cases.

Also the fact you also made a proposal to prohibit war and restrict when war can be conducted makes the demilitarized zones less necessary given that you've basically outlawed all non defensive warfare.

Having both a WA police and military force will put a tremendous strain on the WA budget which means more contribution from member nations, meaning more taxes in respective member states, for a very possibly tyrannical force that has bias towards particular nations.

Apart from suggesting a global military, the act actually seems to be fine on its own and not cause problems but its suggestion of such a creation is what makes me unable to support it.
La Ferra Suprema Reigns Supreme over the vast lands of Stella Nera
A land where humanity is king, above god and devil alike. A blissful Utopia for Humanity, a horrible Dystopia for sentient robots.

Robots shouldn't have rights or citizenship;
Compromise on other non-human sapient entities is possible, with limitations, but not on these buckets of bolts. They should serve humanity and have absolutely no place in society other than as our servants. Think of the benefits of this. Plus, they would almost certainly overtake humanity if we gave them the chance, whether out of pure advanced abilities or malice, or worse, both. Think of humanity.

Humanity First!

User avatar
Astrobolt
Diplomat
 
Posts: 508
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:53 pm

The Ice States wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That holds true within member-nations, but not upon member-nations. It relies on an invisible clause.)

How can it be legal for a member nation to do something explicitly declared a crime by the WA?


OOC: Why not also make a prohibition clear?
Last edited by Astrobolt on Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Delegate of the 10000 Islands
Ambassador to the WA: Mr. Reede Tappe

TITO Tactical Officer


For a detailed list of positions, and other things of note, click here.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:55 pm

Astrobolt wrote:
The Ice States wrote:How can it be legal for a member nation to do something explicitly declared a crime by the WA?


OOC: Why not also make a prohibition clear?

Whatever, I have changed "war crime" to "unlawful war crime".
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
August Imperium
Envoy
 
Posts: 206
Founded: Dec 31, 2023
Ex-Nation

Postby August Imperium » Sun Jan 14, 2024 3:28 pm

Stella Nera wrote:I feel like this proposal is is somewhat of an attack on national autonomy, you've already created a WA global police force, we didn't need that and we certainly don't need a WA global military. Assuring the neutrality of such an entity is not possible as its members will have to be made up of member nations whose loyalty to said nation cannot be discredited completely in most cases.

I disagree. This is like calling UN peacekeepers the UN military- they can only be used with the approval of all nations in the DMZ, cannot use offensive force, and only enforce the DMZ.

To use a RL example, would you propose sending in North Korean troops to guard the Korean DMZ? What about South Korean troops? How can member states respect a demilitarised zone if you want their soldiers to be in that zone to enforce it? That defeats the purpose of the DMZ, which is why an IPF is necessary.
THE AUGUST IMPERIUM

User avatar
Verdant Haven
Director of Content
 
Posts: 2800
Founded: Feb 26, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Verdant Haven » Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:46 am

"I fear that this feels simultaneously like an overreach, and rather toothless. Everything it contains is entirely subject to the consent and agreement of the nations in which peacekeeping is being conducted, from the existence of a zone, to the presence of IPF forces, to the roles those forces are permitted to play. That renders any such force utterly pointless, as any nation whose access to the DMZ they are intended to prevent can simply withdraw consent from the peacekeeping mandate on the spot. How is such a group supposed to 'prevent military access to the zone' when the arrival of that military in-and-of-itself represents the end of the IPF mandate? The only role in which such a force could possibly be effective would be if a nation's military has begun operating entirely outside the control of the WA-recognized sovereign government, in which case the peacekeeping force would more accurately be described as WA-provided mercenaries, there to try and keep a civil conflict from spilling across borders."

User avatar
Orcuo
Diplomat
 
Posts: 683
Founded: Dec 15, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Orcuo » Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:51 am

“This feeble attempt to limit our power is futile; we do not support this proposal being enacted.”
Last edited by Orcuo on Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:53 am, edited 4 times in total.
Funnyman: Putting the ‘Ions’ in NationStates since forever.
Proud Subsidiary of the NationStates Official* YouTube Channel
(*Due to a cease and desist letter from Maxcorp, I had to put this asterisk next to "Official")

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Tue Jan 16, 2024 3:50 pm

Verdant Haven wrote:"I fear that this feels simultaneously like an overreach, and rather toothless. Everything it contains is entirely subject to the consent and agreement of the nations in which peacekeeping is being conducted, from the existence of a zone, to the presence of IPF forces, to the roles those forces are permitted to play. That renders any such force utterly pointless, as any nation whose access to the DMZ they are intended to prevent can simply withdraw consent from the peacekeeping mandate on the spot. How is such a group supposed to 'prevent military access to the zone' when the arrival of that military in-and-of-itself represents the end of the IPF mandate? The only role in which such a force could possibly be effective would be if a nation's military has begun operating entirely outside the control of the WA-recognized sovereign government, in which case the peacekeeping force would more accurately be described as WA-provided mercenaries, there to try and keep a civil conflict from spilling across borders."

"While I understand the concern, I believe that the withdrawal of consent, especially when done 'on the spot' as you have termed it, is itself a disincentive. Such action will inevitably result in significant international scrutiny, which a member nation planning to invade another would naturally seek to avoid. In addition, the mere presence of the said peacekeepers does still indicate the continued consent of both member nations, and would therefore still provide substantial assurance to both parties that no violation is occuring."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Verdant Haven
Director of Content
 
Posts: 2800
Founded: Feb 26, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Verdant Haven » Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:22 pm

The Ice States wrote:"While I understand the concern, I believe that the withdrawal of consent, especially when done 'on the spot' as you have termed it, is itself a disincentive. Such action will inevitably result in significant international scrutiny, which a member nation planning to invade another would naturally seek to avoid. In addition, the mere presence of the said peacekeepers does still indicate the continued consent of both member nations, and would therefore still provide substantial assurance to both parties that no violation is occuring."


"My concern is less about movement back into a DMZ in preparation for a future hostile action, but rather that the movement into the DMZ and the hostile action are one and the same. Supposing a generous 10km wide DMZ, shared evenly between two nations, such that the border is in the center 5km from either side. What is to stop a nation's military from simply beginning hostile action from just on their side of the DMZ, revoking approval as their tanks cross the line at flank speed? What purpose do the peacekeepers serve other than to step aside with no legal authority or protection, as that meager 5km of space is crossed in 3-6 minutes - less time than it takes to even get a message up the front line military chain of command, much less a political one? The shells would be falling before peacekeeping units on the other side of the DMZ even knew their mandate was up. The mission described in Sections 3a and 3b is a Peace Enforcement Mission - something where peacekeepers have the ability to militarily enforce the peace with the backing of the international community, regardless of the wishes of those on whom it is enforced. What is described by the rest of the proposal is an Observation Mission - there to document and report, but with none of the enforcement authority necessary for Sections 3a and 3b. The contents of Section 4 further emphasizes that this group's mandate can never be anything more than passive observation. I have no objections to WA-sponsored observers, and in fact am far more open to that concept than to WA peace enforcement. What I feel like at present is that the group is presented as the latter, but has only the authorities of the former, rendering it ineffective in its stated mission."

User avatar
Simone Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1812
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Wed Jan 17, 2024 6:55 am

"There's no way Simone Republic is sending troops to help the IEC to enforce a DMZ or to be cannon fodder, not that we have any troops anyway." The bear says, munching another salmon. "If two countries can't stop themselves from fighting a war, let them."
All posts OOC. (He/him). I don't speak for TNP. IC the "white bear" (it) is for jokes only.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2856
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby The Ice States » Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:08 pm

Verdant Haven wrote:
The Ice States wrote:"While I understand the concern, I believe that the withdrawal of consent, especially when done 'on the spot' as you have termed it, is itself a disincentive. Such action will inevitably result in significant international scrutiny, which a member nation planning to invade another would naturally seek to avoid. In addition, the mere presence of the said peacekeepers does still indicate the continued consent of both member nations, and would therefore still provide substantial assurance to both parties that no violation is occuring."


"My concern is less about movement back into a DMZ in preparation for a future hostile action, but rather that the movement into the DMZ and the hostile action are one and the same. Supposing a generous 10km wide DMZ, shared evenly between two nations, such that the border is in the center 5km from either side. What is to stop a nation's military from simply beginning hostile action from just on their side of the DMZ, revoking approval as their tanks cross the line at flank speed? What purpose do the peacekeepers serve other than to step aside with no legal authority or protection, as that meager 5km of space is crossed in 3-6 minutes - less time than it takes to even get a message up the front line military chain of command, much less a political one? The shells would be falling before peacekeeping units on the other side of the DMZ even knew their mandate was up. The mission described in Sections 3a and 3b is a Peace Enforcement Mission - something where peacekeepers have the ability to militarily enforce the peace with the backing of the international community, regardless of the wishes of those on whom it is enforced. What is described by the rest of the proposal is an Observation Mission - there to document and report, but with none of the enforcement authority necessary for Sections 3a and 3b. The contents of Section 4 further emphasizes that this group's mandate can never be anything more than passive observation. I have no objections to WA-sponsored observers, and in fact am far more open to that concept than to WA peace enforcement. What I feel like at present is that the group is presented as the latter, but has only the authorities of the former, rendering it ineffective in its stated mission."

"Does the addition of Section 3b address your concerns, Ambassador? By requiring a consultation, this would mean that the member nation intending to revoke consent would have to inform the other member nation of those intentions, and then discuss it with said member nation in good faith, which may not be ideal when planning an imminent invasion."

Simone Republic wrote:"There's no way Simone Republic is sending troops to help the IEC to enforce a DMZ or to be cannon fodder, not that we have any troops anyway." The bear says, munching another salmon. "If two countries can't stop themselves from fighting a war, let them."

"That your nation has decided this is fair, but has no bearing on the actual proposal. The resolution refers only to 'IPF officers' formed in the spawning pool as any other committee staff. Your nation has no obligation to send your own personnel too; I imagine the gnomes would reject that too given that they have never permitted mortals, like you and I, to serve on committees."

"As a note, we have since changed the wording of 'officers' to 'personnel', but this does not change the substance of my argument."

Orcuo wrote:“This feeble attempt to limit our power is futile; we do not support this proposal being enacted.”

"Your nation should be more concerned about the Convention Aganist Military Aggression we are drafting."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Last edited by The Ice States on Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:22 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Verdant Haven
Director of Content
 
Posts: 2800
Founded: Feb 26, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Verdant Haven » Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:54 pm

The Ice States wrote:"Does the addition of Section 3b address your concerns, Ambassador? By requiring a consultation, this would mean that the member nation intending to revoke consent would have to inform the other member nation of those intentions, and then discuss it with said member nation in good faith, which may not be ideal when planning an imminent invasion."

The addition of Section 3b does indeed address my concerns regarding the ease of withdrawing consent. Thank you for your consideration in this regard, Your Excellency. I fear that the execution of Sections 3i and 3ii still requires authorities well outside the mandate provided by the balance of the resolution, as they remain enforcement clauses with no enforcement mechanism, but the language does now provide the necessary protections for WA personnel so that at least they will have time to reach safety when a DMZ breaks down."

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Simone Republic

Advertisement

Remove ads