NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Prohibition of Conscription

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

[DRAFT] Prohibition of Conscription

Postby Starman of Stardust » Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:34 pm

Cognisant that many member nations continue to engage in certain evils in massacring the populations of other member nations for the pursuit of political aims, whether they be imperialism, increasing wealth, or simple intolerance;

Aghast that some such member nations have resorted to requiring peaceful civilians to participate in such massacres, a practice typically referred to as conscription;

Recalling the past steps taken by this Assembly in restricting this practice, in the form of such legislation as Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service;

Recognising, however, that such legislation allows for both conscription where an individual will contribute indirectly to the death of other individuals, and for burdensome reviews of individuals' objections which may very well deter individuals from objecting in the absence of a complete ban on the practice;

Seeking to advance international progress and thus eradicate the heinous practice of conscription in all cases but the most justifiable;

The World Assembly proudly enacts as follows.

  1. Prohibition: Subject only to Sections 2 and 3, no member nation may (a) compel any individual to enter military service, or (b) penalise or discriminate against any individual for failing to enter military service. Discrimination under Subsection 1b includes denial of citizenship, public services, or any other civil right.

  2. Desertion: In this section, "desertion" refers to an act where an individual is wilfully absent from a military role in contravention of a contract which that individual has voluntarily entered. Desertion excludes any case where (a) the relevant military force granted authorisation to such an act, or (b) the individual demonstrates a bona fide conscientious objection to continuing in that role. Section 1 shall not prohibit a member nation from penalising an individual for desertion, provided that such penalisation is compliant with past or future World Assemby law standing as of interpretation.

  3. Self-defense: Section 1 may be waived for a member nation to require an individual subject to its jurisdiction to participate in military efforts to halt an act of war which poses an existential threat against that nation. This clause shall not be invoked to conscript an individual who demonstrates a bona fide conscientious objection to such participation, or where such conscription would violate past or future World Assembly law standing as of interpretation.

  4. Enforcement: A member nation must immediately cease to enforce any penalty which would violate Section 1 if imposed while this resolution is in force. No member nation may assist any other nation in an act which would violate this resolution if performed by a member nation. No political or administrative subdivision of a member nation may enforce any penalty or other policy which would violate Section 1 if enforced by that member nation directly.


Cognisant that many member nations continue to engage in certain evils in massacring the populations of other member nations for the pursuit of political aims, whether they be imperialism, increasing wealth, or simple intolerance;

Aghast that some such member nations have resorted to requiring peaceful civilians to participate in such massacres, a practice typically referred to as conscription;

Recalling the past steps taken by this Assembly in restricting this practice, in the form of such legislation as Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service;

Recognising, however, that such legislation allows for both conscription where an individual will contribute indirectly to the death of other individuals, and for burdensome reviews of individuals' objections which may very well deter individuals from objecting in the absence of a complete ban on the practice;

Seeking to advance international progress and thus eradicate the heinous practice of conscription from the Assembly;

The World Assembly proudly enacts as follows.

  1. Prohibition: No member nation may compel any individual to serve in any role where that individual would be required to participate in or facilitate the military activities of that nation. Nor may any member nation penalise or discriminate against any individual for failing to serve in such a role.

  2. Enforcement: No member nation may continue to enforce any penalty against an individual which would violate Section 1 if imposed while this resolution is in force. Nor may any member nation assist any nation in an act which would violate Section 1 if performed by a member nation. No political or administrative subdivision of a member nation may enforce any penalty or other policy which would violate Section 1 if enforced by that member nation directly.
Last edited by Starman of Stardust on Sun Nov 03, 2024 10:12 pm, edited 8 times in total.
IC name: The Democratic Stellar Union. My main nation is The Ice States.

WA Ambassador: Lindelas Pakilator (Sep. 2024 - present); formerly Hayden Stubbe (Jul. 2022 - Sep. 2024)

User avatar
Greater North-America
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Apr 29, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Greater North-America » Sun Sep 22, 2024 8:38 am

While I must commend the author of this proposal for being short and to the point (long winded proposals are the worst), the North American delegation has several criticisms of it.

Starman of Stardust wrote:Cognisant that many member nations continue to engage in certain evils in massacring the populations of other member nations for the pursuit of political aims, whether they be imperialism, increasing wealth, or simple intolerance...
Indeed, it is dreadful, inexcusable, a moral evil to massacre the population of any nation, member of this esteemed institution or not. However,

Aghast that some such member nations have resorted to requiring peaceful civilians to participate in such massacres, a practice typically referred to as conscription...

the implication that this is the sole purpose of conscription is ludicrous! Conscription is practiced here in the USNA, and how many countries have we invaded? How many populations have we annihilated since the formation of our government? In fact, our nation is a perfect example. Three separate and sovereign nations sought to better the estate of their citizens; "increase their wealth", provide better for their security, comfort, and well being. Did they go to war? Did they conquer one another? Did they massacre each other's populations? Nay, but rather they peacefully united! The Treaty of St. Lawrence followed by an Act of Union in both the American Congress and the Canadian Parliament, set forth a basis for the new nation, which was followed by the Treaty of Rio Norte and the Acts of Federation with Mexico. The conscripts in the respective nations' armed forces played no role whatsoever in this union. Imperialism was not, and never will be this nation's aim.

The claim that conscription implicitly stems from imperialist policy is groundless. 'Tis true, indeed, and no one will deny it, that conscripts have been used in imperialist military adventures, but it is just as true that conscripts have been used in a way anti imperialist, namely, to defend the nation and the rights of its citizens, from foreign enemies to the people's sacred rights.

Imperialists seldom attack militarily strong nations, and if there be few attacks on a mighty nation, there be even fewer successful victories. What history shows us, is that imperialists are like wolves: they do not attack the strong and vigorous, but it is rather the weak and enfeebled that they choose for prey. Consider it, if you will, would a nation with a million or more conscripted troops, trained in the defense of their nation, provide a palpable target to nations seeking to subjugate? Would a country with a small volunteer army, and many civilians unversed in the use of arms, by some inherent virtue of their freedoms, be able to withstand the onslaught of tanks, planes, and guns from a hostile power? I know not what conclusions you draw from this, but I am of the opinion that conscription is beneficial, at times, vital even, to national defense.

Suppose a nation were invaded? How shall it defend itself if it cannot call up troops? You mean to tell me that by some miracle of God enough troops will volunteer to repel the invaders? Why, I dare say in every major conflict in human sapient history, every nation that has been invaded has conscripted men and women to defend it. And if conscripts are necessary to repel invasion, perhaps they would be very effective at deterring it in the first place, no?

Recalling the past steps taken by this Assembly in restricting this practice, in the form of such legislation as Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service...
Yes, a most excellent piece of international legislation! Conscientious objectors should be afforded the full protection of law, insofar as their objections truly are based on conscience.

Recognising, however, that such legislation allows for both conscription where an individual will contribute indirectly to the death of other individuals, and for burdensome reviews of individuals' objections which may very well deter individuals from objecting in the absence of a complete ban on the practice...

If these be geniune flaws in GAR660, would it not make more sense to repeal that law, and draft a better replacement? To say we must ban conscription, because a law regulating conscription has flaws in it, makes as much sense as saying we should amputate a man's eye, because he needs corrective surgery.

Seeking to advance international progress and thus eradicate the heinous practice of conscription from the Assembly...
The author of this proposal claims that conscription is a "heinous practice". Heinous? Heinous you say? Is it heinous to defend one's nation? Is it heinous to fight for one's national society? Is it heinous to take up arms, in the just and sacred cause of liberty? Some may argue that conscription deprives a person of their rights. Some will say that there is no justice in compelling someone to take up arms. These people speak of such things, in such high and philosophical terms, to seduce those who know not better into agreeing with them. What justice is there, in enjoying the civil rights guaranteed to one, on the back and blood of those who had the patriotism enough to volunteer? Tell me what is right in demanding the rights and comforts of civil society, but refusing to contribute to its protection? Essentially, those who refuse to fight (good faith conscientious objectors, notwithstanding) are guilty of the blood of those who fought for them, who waged war in their defense, and they can only expunge their guilt, wash their bloody hands in the service of their nation, whether it be military or no.

The author speaks of international progress, but I assure, to ban conscription will be no progress whatsoever. To say a nation may have an army for its defense, but can draft no conscripts, is like saying a man may own a gun for his defense, but cannot buy bullets, using only such as are given to him.

Having expressed my sentiments on the matter, which I hope is a reflection of my nation's government, I cede the floor.
—John Curt, Delegate of North America
The United States of North America, consisting of a legal(ish) union between the US and Canada in the aftermath of WWIII. Mexico may or may not have been "strongly urged" into joining too. Colloquially known as Greater North America, United States, or USNA.

User avatar
Barfleur
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 1280
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:17 am

"We strongly oppose this proposal. While there is merit in not requiring persons to bear arms against their moral scruples--a practice that both violates individual rights and reduces morale among the troops--we cannot say the same about a blanket ban on conscription. Compelling a person to serve as a cook or truck driver as part of a military base does not require them to be directly involved in the killing process, or to be placed in great personal danger, and so we see no reason to forbid it. Member nations, especially those which are invaded by larger non-members, should not be needlessly hamstrung in their national defense, especially when the clear outcome of conquest will be far worse for their citizens than 'burdensome reviews of individuals' objections which may very well deter individuals from objecting in the absence of a complete ban on the practice.' At some point, a person who lives in a member nation and thus benefits from the advantages of membership--quality healthcare, freedom of speech and religion, gender equality, a healthy environment, and a lack of political repression, to name a few--can be reasonably expected to put in the effort to make sure others can continue enjoying those same benefits."

OOC: I agree that you have a right to not be forced to kill another human being if you believe it to be wrong. You do not have a right to play Candy Crush while your neighbors are being bombed.


Ambassador to the World Assembly: Edmure Norfield
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Author, GA#597, GA#605, GA#609, GA#668, and GA#685.
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission may be found at Suite 59, South-West Building, WAHQ.


Barfleur is a democratic nation with an economy based on shipping. While the popular conception of the country is of a "left-leaning college state" or "civil rights lovefest," we believe "free market paradise" to be more apt given the sources of our national wealth, which in turn powers our supportive social assistance programs.

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:03 pm

OOC: I agree that you have a right to not be forced to kill another human being if you believe it to be wrong. You do not have a right to play Candy Crush while your neighbors are being bombed.

Ooc: As a note, my actual beliefs on conscription are not as strong as this nation's; though I do still broadly oppose the practice.

At the bottom of this post I've proposed an exception for self-defense; noting this here in case it's otherwise missed due to the length of this post :P



Greater North-America wrote:The claim that conscription implicitly stems from imperialist policy is groundless. 'Tis true, indeed, and no one will deny it, that conscripts have been used in imperialist military adventures, but it is just as true that conscripts have been used in a way anti imperialist, namely, to defend the nation and the rights of its citizens, from foreign enemies to the people's sacred rights.

"The Union believes, resolutely, that actual military conflict can be avoided by any civilisation wise enough to advance past the concept of dividing populations by nations with powers we would not grant to any other entity. The Union is itself an example of this -- other than automated systems surrounding Merriwyn which prevent unauthorised objects from entering the planet, it has proudly sported no military for centuries, and has not suffered from any military conflict since."

"We recognise that some member nations have not advanced past this point, however, we still believe that a peaceful nation has no reason to find itself in wars, let alone those so severe as to require conscription while such conscription has a material chance of succeeding."

Suppose a nation were invaded? How shall it defend itself if it cannot call up troops? You mean to tell me that by some miracle of God enough troops will volunteer to repel the invaders? Why, I dare say in every major conflict in human sapient history, every nation that has been invaded has conscripted men and women to defend it. And if conscripts are necessary to repel invasion, perhaps they would be very effective at deterring it in the first place, no?

"I do not believe there is either a scenario where conscription would be a meaningful advantage to self-defense. Conscripts are unlikely to be motivated to participate in the mass murder themselves, which reduces, if we call it that, quality of the military in question. In addition, such a policy in itself will cause resentment and opposition to the war effort to crystallise as unwilling civilians are forced to participate in murders themselves; if this does not happen, it would appear that the policy is largely moot as your nation has done well enough in protecting its citizens that there are already more than enough willing volunteers."

Recognising, however, that such legislation allows for both conscription where an individual will contribute indirectly to the death of other individuals, and for burdensome reviews of individuals' objections which may very well deter individuals from objecting in the absence of a complete ban on the practice...

If these be geniune flaws in GAR660, would it not make more sense to repeal that law, and draft a better replacement? To say we must ban conscription, because a law regulating conscription has flaws in it, makes as much sense as saying we should amputate a man's eye, because he needs corrective surgery.

"No, the solution would not be to repeal that. Of course, we may be biased as the Union was the authoring mission of that resolution, however its protections are intended as a baseline, such that in the absence of other legislation, conscientious objectors have basic protections in place across the World Assembly. However, it is not enough; this is what our resolution here is arguing. The solution is not to repeal that resolution, removing all protections for conscientious objectors under international law, but to build on its mandates and cover that ground which #660 did not."

The author of this proposal claims that conscription is a "heinous practice". Heinous? Heinous you say? Is it heinous to defend one's nation? Is it heinous to fight for one's national society? Is it heinous to take up arms, in the just and sacred cause of liberty? Some may argue that conscription deprives a person of their rights. Some will say that there is no justice in compelling someone to take up arms. These people speak of such things, in such high and philosophical terms, to seduce those who know not better into agreeing with them. What justice is there, in enjoying the civil rights guaranteed to one, on the back and blood of those who had the patriotism enough to volunteer? Tell me what is right in demanding the rights and comforts of civil society, but refusing to contribute to its protection? Essentially, those who refuse to fight (good faith conscientious objectors, notwithstanding) are guilty of the blood of those who fought for them, who waged war in their defense, and they can only expunge their guilt, wash their bloody hands in the service of their nation, whether it be military or no.

"Such comforts were often not derived from any choice to maliciously benefit from a society, while contributing nothing in return like a leech does to a host. They were derived simply from the fact that an individual had the luck to be born in that particular part of their planet, and lacked the means to depart for another part of their planet. There is no guarantee that an individual is, in fact, enjoying such comforts; if they live under a tyrannical regime with an aggressive policy to the rest of civilisation, then they may very well strongly disapprove of this regime, yet be unable to do anything, such as depart, for these reasons. This is not sufficient to establish a moral duty to the particular group of individuals who managed to gain a monopoly on violence in order to place themselves as leaders of all civilisation in that area. Particularly when such duty is not merely contributing something positive to society, but to kill other individuals on grounds of an arbitrary geographic distinction. Such killing is the supreme act of evil, and -- in the absence of it being prohibited entirely -- no individual ought to be forced to engage in it."

-----

Barfleur wrote:"We strongly oppose this proposal. While there is merit in not requiring persons to bear arms against their moral scruples--a practice that both violates individual rights and reduces morale among the troops--we cannot say the same about a blanket ban on conscription. Compelling a person to serve as a cook or truck driver as part of a military base does not require them to be directly involved in the killing process, or to be placed in great personal danger, and so we see no reason to forbid it.

"Perhaps it may not be direct involvement. It is still, however, contributing to unjust killings which ought to be outlawed entirely in civilised society. In principle we object to such unjust killings, and our objection is even stronger when persons are forced to contribute thereto. Both the latter and the former ought to be prohibited; this proposal prohibits the latter."

Member nations, especially those which are invaded by larger non-members, should not be needlessly hamstrung in their national defense, especially when the clear outcome of conquest will be far worse for their citizens than 'burdensome reviews of individuals' objections which may very well deter individuals from objecting in the absence of a complete ban on the practice.' At some point, a person who lives in a member nation and thus benefits from the advantages of membership--quality healthcare, freedom of speech and religion, gender equality, a healthy environment, and a lack of political repression, to name a few--can be reasonably expected to put in the effort to make sure others can continue enjoying those same benefits."

"We refer to our responses above with regards to advantages gained from residing in a specific nation. However, may we propose a compromise of some kind."

"If, it is indeed the case that member nations will need conscripts to fight off a larger invading army -- a situation we believe to be exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible -- we then propose implementing an exception along the following lines to the resolution:"

A member nation may require an individual to participate in military efforts to halt an act of war which poses an existential threat against that nation, if and only if (a) such conscription is carried out to no greater extent that is absolutely necessary to halt the said act of war; (b) such efforts have a substantial probability of succeeding in the presence of such conscription; and (c) such conscription does not violate other World Assembly law, including both past and future resolutions standing as of interpretation.


"We maintain that we do not believe there is any practical circumstance where this exception would be used, inasmuch as no material gain for a nation's defense is provided by conscription. If however, it is the condition to missions supporting this legislation, then we will do what it takes to ensure that peaceful civilians are protected across the World Assembly."
Last edited by Starman of Stardust on Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.
IC name: The Democratic Stellar Union. My main nation is The Ice States.

WA Ambassador: Lindelas Pakilator (Sep. 2024 - present); formerly Hayden Stubbe (Jul. 2022 - Sep. 2024)

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14461
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:10 pm

Starman of Stardust wrote:Recalling the past steps taken by this Assembly in restricting this practice, in the form of such legislation as Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service;

Recognising, however, that such legislation allows for both conscription where an individual will contribute indirectly to the death of other individuals, and for burdensome reviews of individuals' objections which may very well deter individuals from objecting in the absence of a complete ban on the practice;

That was your resolution. Why didn't you (the OOC player; I'm aware that SoS and TIS have different ambassadors with different opinions) argue for a ban when you were RnRing the Military Freedom Act last year? :P
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, GA#757
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; proclaimer of WZTC's move to Palmetto
Tinhampton the player: 49yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing (sorry)

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:14 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Starman of Stardust wrote:Recalling the past steps taken by this Assembly in restricting this practice, in the form of such legislation as Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service;

Recognising, however, that such legislation allows for both conscription where an individual will contribute indirectly to the death of other individuals, and for burdensome reviews of individuals' objections which may very well deter individuals from objecting in the absence of a complete ban on the practice;

That was your resolution. Why didn't you (the OOC player; I'm aware that SoS and TIS have different ambassadors with different opinions) argue for a ban when you were RnRing the Military Freedom Act last year? :P

Ooc: As a note the DSU was also the Ic author of that resolution. If I'm being honest the purpose of that was only to avoid losing votes so that the said base protections can be enacted; I did argue for this at the time ([1]; [2]), and stated this was the reason for the exception.
Last edited by Starman of Stardust on Sun Sep 22, 2024 1:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
IC name: The Democratic Stellar Union. My main nation is The Ice States.

WA Ambassador: Lindelas Pakilator (Sep. 2024 - present); formerly Hayden Stubbe (Jul. 2022 - Sep. 2024)

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13006
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Sep 22, 2024 2:14 pm

Strongly opposed.

Author: 1 SC and 59+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 885
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sun Sep 22, 2024 3:19 pm

I am of the belief that the WA ought to help as many people as possible, especially those that face authoritarian and oppressive conditions in their own nations. As such, any restrictions the WA must impose should provide as much good as possible, without discouraging oppressive nations from leaving the WA and thus removing all the good imposed unto their citizens that may otherwise be available.

I say this because the net good provided by this is very small, while the incentive given to authoritarian and oppressive nations to leave the WA is very high. As such, I oppose.

I am on my phone, apologies for minor grammatical/spelling errors.

Notable Government Officials:

Magus Regent: Delfi Quix

Chief WA Delegate: Norde Lot

Telegram me with time-sensitive requests.

User avatar
Second Sovereignty
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 456
Founded: Jan 02, 2023
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Second Sovereignty » Sun Sep 22, 2024 3:55 pm

"Well," Raxes clicked pointedly, "I, for one, am profoundly disappointed - though, not surprised, - to see that a bit of time has not at all dulled the proud commitment to slavery espoused by, certain delegations, in this Assembly. The Sovereign offers full support to the legislation, and I would personally wish the author better luck than we had."
First Minister 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
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22946
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Sep 22, 2024 4:36 pm

"My office categorically opposes attempts to legalize desertion."
A lonely soul in a room by itself weeping. It lives for eighty years and then it's gone. And then it's there again. A reprieve. A good life. Love, children, a steady career. Recognition from your peers. Here one moment, gone the next. The worms have found their orifices. Diagnosis. It forgets everything it is. Anger. Rage. Distance. Poverty. The lonely soul is lonely again. Love turns to mockery. It dies. It is reborn. Worse. Lonelier.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Astrobolt
Diplomat
 
Posts: 604
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Astrobolt » Sun Sep 22, 2024 5:25 pm

Tappe: While we sympathize with the goals of the resolution, we cannot support this. Conscription is a defensible tool in times of defensive conflict, and we broadly agree with the delegation from Barfleur on this one.”
TITO Tactical Officer
Ambassador to the WA: Mr. Reede Tappe


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

User avatar
Barfleur
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 1280
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Sun Sep 22, 2024 5:39 pm

Starman of Stardust wrote:
Barfleur wrote:"We strongly oppose this proposal. While there is merit in not requiring persons to bear arms against their moral scruples--a practice that both violates individual rights and reduces morale among the troops--we cannot say the same about a blanket ban on conscription. Compelling a person to serve as a cook or truck driver as part of a military base does not require them to be directly involved in the killing process, or to be placed in great personal danger, and so we see no reason to forbid it.

"Perhaps it may not be direct involvement. It is still, however, contributing to unjust killings which ought to be outlawed entirely in civilised society. In principle we object to such unjust killings, and our objection is even stronger when persons are forced to contribute thereto. Both the latter and the former ought to be prohibited; this proposal prohibits the latter."

"Why are such killings 'unjust' and why should they be prohibited? While all sapient bloodshed is tragic and to be avoided if at all possible, I do not share your belief that it must necessarily be immoral. If the Empire of Daguo invades the tribal lands of the Lomoghankki, intending to dispossess the natives at best and exterminate them at worst, why is it immoral for the subjects of invasion to defend their right to remain alive? My delegation posits that it would be far more immoral to surrender and allow the most vulnerable to become subject to the abuses that follow invasion."


Ambassador to the World Assembly: Edmure Norfield
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Author, GA#597, GA#605, GA#609, GA#668, and GA#685.
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission may be found at Suite 59, South-West Building, WAHQ.


Barfleur is a democratic nation with an economy based on shipping. While the popular conception of the country is of a "left-leaning college state" or "civil rights lovefest," we believe "free market paradise" to be more apt given the sources of our national wealth, which in turn powers our supportive social assistance programs.

User avatar
Second Sovereignty
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 456
Founded: Jan 02, 2023
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Second Sovereignty » Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:26 am

Barfleur wrote:"Why are such killings 'unjust' and why should they be prohibited? While all sapient bloodshed is tragic and to be avoided if at all possible, I do not share your belief that it must necessarily be immoral. If the Empire of Daguo invades the tribal lands of the Lomoghankki, intending to dispossess the natives at best and exterminate them at worst, why is it immoral for the subjects of invasion to defend their right to remain alive? My delegation posits that it would be far more immoral to surrender and allow the most vulnerable to become subject to the abuses that follow invasion."

"Ah, yes, as we all know, the two choices of conflict; Mass-Enslavement or Extermination. It is fortunate indeed that we do not live in a world where warfare is complex affair that cannot be described with a series of nationalist and moralist platitudes. No genocidal state has ever made use of such policies to further genocidal aims, nor any oppressors ever forced their people into service in their defense; what a grim world that would be!" Raxes clicked again, sharply. "Ever onward to heroic death, yes? Live forever in a mass grave somewhere where your name serves the great Nation forever! Elsewise you're practically massacring your fellow civilians for the enemy, and we simply can't have that, can we? Remember to ask how your children can serve - it's just a moral obligation for all to give all, whether they like it or not!"
Last edited by Second Sovereignty on Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
First Minister 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
Haymarket Riot
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 246
Founded: Aug 29, 2023
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Haymarket Riot » Mon Sep 23, 2024 4:20 am

Second Sovereignty wrote:
Barfleur wrote:"Why are such killings 'unjust' and why should they be prohibited? While all sapient bloodshed is tragic and to be avoided if at all possible, I do not share your belief that it must necessarily be immoral. If the Empire of Daguo invades the tribal lands of the Lomoghankki, intending to dispossess the natives at best and exterminate them at worst, why is it immoral for the subjects of invasion to defend their right to remain alive? My delegation posits that it would be far more immoral to surrender and allow the most vulnerable to become subject to the abuses that follow invasion."

"Ah, yes, as we all know, the two choices of conflict; Mass-Enslavement or Extermination. It is fortunate indeed that we do not live in a world where warfare is complex affair that cannot be described with a series of nationalist and moralist platitudes. No genocidal state has ever made use of such policies to further genocidal aims, nor any oppressors ever forced their people into service in their defense; what a grim world that would be!" Raxes clicked again, sharply. "Ever onward to heroic death, yes? Live forever in a mass grave somewhere where your name serves the great Nation forever! Elsewise you're practically massacring your fellow civilians for the enemy, and we simply can't have that, can we? Remember to ask how your children can serve - it's just a moral obligation for all to give all, whether they like it or not!"

"Then ban those evils, not conscription on the whole,"
President Jefferson suggests, wearing a hat that bears the flag of the revolution,
"Apparently narrowly tailored legislation has fallen by the wayside among the most privileged states, which seek to force WA member states with violent and evil neighbors to bow down without a choice merely on the conception of human rights that they believe are written in law and not in blood."
The Butch Antifascists of Haymarket Riot
Proud Wife of Emiline
Mayor of Ridgefield||Diplomatic Officer of the Augustin Alliance||Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The North Pacific||General Assembly Secretariat as of 10/13/24
IC: President Jolene Josephine Jefferson of Haymarket Riot
Formerly: Lieutenant in the Black Hawks, Delegate of Pacifica, Prime Director of Anteria
Author of SC 228 | GA 742 | GA 748
I'm a chick.
"Love is wise, hatred is foolish" - Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Barfleur
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 1280
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Mon Sep 23, 2024 8:45 am

OOC: I am not going to respond to the IC/OOC discussions of genocide by real-world nations. I am going to suggest Tinfect read what I was actually saying, which was on the topic of conscription other than for combative service. It's not "heroic death," more like "preparing MREs for volunteer soldiers."


Ambassador to the World Assembly: Edmure Norfield
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Author, GA#597, GA#605, GA#609, GA#668, and GA#685.
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission may be found at Suite 59, South-West Building, WAHQ.


Barfleur is a democratic nation with an economy based on shipping. While the popular conception of the country is of a "left-leaning college state" or "civil rights lovefest," we believe "free market paradise" to be more apt given the sources of our national wealth, which in turn powers our supportive social assistance programs.

User avatar
Second Sovereignty
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 456
Founded: Jan 02, 2023
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Second Sovereignty » Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:40 am

Barfleur wrote:OOC: I am not going to respond to the IC/OOC discussions of genocide by real-world nations. I am going to suggest Tinfect read what I was actually saying, which was on the topic of conscription other than for combative service. It's not "heroic death," more like "preparing MREs for volunteer soldiers."

OOC:
Please show me where non-combat conscription was mentioned in your post; it looked an awful lot to me like you were talking about the 'immorality' of... not conscripting people into the meat grinder. That's what I was responding to, and if you aren't prepared to discuss genocide and genocidal states and the use of conscription in their goals and defense, don't bring it up! Using OOC examples that could not be stated in-character, to reinforce the validity of an in-character point is not unusual.

In any case, 'Non-Combat' conscription is fundamentally identical to the alternative; it remains 1. forced labor, to which I am absolutely and in all cases opposed, shockingly, and 2. well within the line of fire. Truck drivers, base staff, etc. are frequently targets, regardless of whether or not they are themselves strictly gun-toting soldiers. And, indeed, they are often expected to be armed and capable of combat if necessary.
Last edited by Second Sovereignty on Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
First Minister 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
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2323
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:35 pm

(IC)

"Can we send a message to every non member in the multiverse about this resolution?"

"What, as a bait for them to invade Starman of Stardust?"
(It).

User avatar
Elyreia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 383
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Elyreia » Mon Sep 23, 2024 5:42 pm

Elyreia provides civilian alternatives to military service. These are not truck drivers and baseball staff, but rather serving administrative positions for government or emergency services. Non-combat can very well I cluded non-combat if you design it in a way appropriate.
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki
Currently recovering from abdominal surgery IRL
Proud member of the Gay Furry Pacific Clique

World Assembly Ambassador: Dārilaros Korus Vaelans
Uncrowned Head of the House of Vaelans-Volaria
[he/him/she/her/they/them]
(Character Dossier)

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:07 pm

Barfleur wrote:
Starman of Stardust wrote:
"Perhaps it may not be direct involvement. It is still, however, contributing to unjust killings which ought to be outlawed entirely in civilised society. In principle we object to such unjust killings, and our objection is even stronger when persons are forced to contribute thereto. Both the latter and the former ought to be prohibited; this proposal prohibits the latter."

"Why are such killings 'unjust' and why should they be prohibited? While all sapient bloodshed is tragic and to be avoided if at all possible, I do not share your belief that it must necessarily be immoral. If the Empire of Daguo invades the tribal lands of the Lomoghankki, intending to dispossess the natives at best and exterminate them at worst, why is it immoral for the subjects of invasion to defend their right to remain alive? My delegation posits that it would be far more immoral to surrender and allow the most vulnerable to become subject to the abuses that follow invasion."

"The ideology of the Union is perhaps more general than is made clear by this statement. It is, indeed, difficult to fault individual victims of military war or the evils of an imperialist tyranny for their individual actions. The system that leads such violence to occur -- that of segregating civilisation based on arbitrary geographical lines -- is ultimately what we found, successfully, needed to be uprooted."

Something resembling a red blob appears from behind the Ambassador's chair; gradually the blob morphs into a figure that could perhaps be described as a worm, though certainly too large to ordinarily fall under that descriptor. She nonetheless continues speaking, "I suppose this is besides the point, however."

The worm slides onto the desk table, moving dangerously close to -- though always avoiding -- the sheets of paper laid on the table. Instead, a black box on the worm's back seems to release new sheets of paper on top of the old ones -- on the same, precise location each time. Pakilator resumes speaking, seemingly ignoring what is perhaps confusion to the other Ambassadors on the table.

"The Union has prepared an updated draft which now includes an exception for self-defense, while also clarifying that the resolution shall not prohibit criminalising desertion from roles which an individual voluntarily entered, to the extent possible in any nation of that sort. We hope that this effective compromise can address many of the concerns raised so far, and thus request commentary directed on the latest draft. We direct this request not only to the Barfleurian mission, but also those of the other delegations to raise similar concerns."

Second Sovereignty wrote:"Well," Raxes clicked pointedly, "I, for one, am profoundly disappointed - though, not surprised, - to see that a bit of time has not at all dulled the proud commitment to slavery espoused by, certain delegations, in this Assembly. The Sovereign offers full support to the legislation, and I would personally wish the author better luck than we had."

"Thank you for your support, Ambassador."
Last edited by Starman of Stardust on Mon Sep 23, 2024 11:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
IC name: The Democratic Stellar Union. My main nation is The Ice States.

WA Ambassador: Lindelas Pakilator (Sep. 2024 - present); formerly Hayden Stubbe (Jul. 2022 - Sep. 2024)

User avatar
Greater North-America
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Apr 29, 2024
Father Knows Best State

Postby Greater North-America » Tue Sep 24, 2024 6:04 pm

Am I to understand that under section 3, conscription may only occur after an act of war has been committed against the defending nation? Personally I am of the opinion that conscription should be allowed whenever there is reason to believe that a war may occur, regardless of whether or not the war has actually started.

(OOC: think along the lines of the US initiating conscription in 1940 , even though no act of war was committed against the US until December of the following year.)
Last edited by Greater North-America on Tue Sep 24, 2024 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The United States of North America, consisting of a legal(ish) union between the US and Canada in the aftermath of WWIII. Mexico may or may not have been "strongly urged" into joining too. Colloquially known as Greater North America, United States, or USNA.

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Thu Oct 03, 2024 4:51 pm

Greater North-America wrote:Am I to understand that under section 3, conscription may only occur after an act of war has been committed against the defending nation? Personally I am of the opinion that conscription should be allowed whenever there is reason to believe that a war may occur, regardless of whether or not the war has actually started.

(OOC: think along the lines of the US initiating conscription in 1940 , even though no act of war was committed against the US until December of the following year.)

"That is correct. We do not see a reason for a member nation to be able to commence forced military service when no war has actually occurred."
IC name: The Democratic Stellar Union. My main nation is The Ice States.

WA Ambassador: Lindelas Pakilator (Sep. 2024 - present); formerly Hayden Stubbe (Jul. 2022 - Sep. 2024)

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2323
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:12 pm

Since I disagree with the premise of the proposal, I look forward to its defeat.
(It).

User avatar
Starman of Stardust
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 156
Founded: Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Starman of Stardust » Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:17 pm

Simone Republic wrote:Since I disagree with the premise of the proposal, I look forward to its defeat.

Pakilator turns, directly addressing the ursine Ambassador in front of her. "Could your mission clarify how it is morally acceptable to force individuals to participate in aggressive wars?"
Last edited by Starman of Stardust on Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IC name: The Democratic Stellar Union. My main nation is The Ice States.

WA Ambassador: Lindelas Pakilator (Sep. 2024 - present); formerly Hayden Stubbe (Jul. 2022 - Sep. 2024)

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2323
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:27 pm

I don't have an different IC v OOC view so I think this doesn't matter. This isn't NSG so I've stopped arguing the specifics of contentious issues like abortion, gun rights, etc., other than really to state my position.
(It).

User avatar
Bruh and fortnite
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Sep 16, 2022
Right-wing Utopia

[DRAFT] Prohibition of Conscription

Postby Bruh and fortnite » Fri Oct 04, 2024 9:55 am

There is no reason to prohibit conscription. Wartime conscription may be necessary for the very survival of the state.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fortisium, Simone Republic, The Ice States

Advertisement

Remove ads