At Vote: Ban of Perfidy in Warfare [Complete] [Complete]

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Ban of Perfidy in Warfare

Proposed by: Elke and Elba | Resolution link | World Assembly forum thread​
Description: Believing that member states must observe certain codes of conduct in times of war,

Convinced that amongst these, the duty not to commit perfidious act is one of the more pertinent and integral one,

Recognising that concerted international action is required to prevent the shirking of this duty, and that concerted international action is required to establish laws to that effect, also,

Worrying that any act of perfidy conducted by any belligerent party in a war would only undermine trust and breed mistrust towards the adversary and/or humanitarian organisations,

The World Assembly,

1. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including, but not limited to,

a) falsely declaring to be a non-combatant,
b) deceiving to be in distress,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce without the intention to do so;

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS combatants of member states from issuing any messages of intent (e.g. offer of surrender) that are meant to deceive, and falsely using any signs, signals, emblems and/or insignia, to seek protection and/or protected status, especially those,

a) associated with the World Assembly,
b) associated with humanitarian organisations;

3. FORBIDS combatants of member states from using any form of identification, military or otherwise, of any other sovereign state except their own during combat; of which such identification includes but is not limited to flags, coat of arms, emblems, uniforms and insignia, unless,

a) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to use their own identification, and,
b) the other sovereign state is an allied party participating in the conflict;

4. CLARIFIES that,

a) any violation of this resolution is to be considered war crimes for the purposes of prosecution, and,
b) member states are thus required to prosecute any non-compliant combatant;

5. FURTHER MANDATES the International Criminal Court (ICC) to try any non-compliant combatant if,

a) the member state in which the said combatant had represented had ceased to exist, or,
b) no member state is able to try the said combatant due to extenuating conditions not covered in clause 4 or sub-clause (a) of this clause, and;

6. FURTHER CLARIFIES that ruses of war are permitted as long as they do not violate any restriction enacted by this resolution. These include, but are not limited to,

a) tactics that may utilize deceit, and/or,
b) tactics that have the intent to mislead or provoke a reaction from their adversaries.
Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.
 
MINISTERIAL REVIEW​

This one, is by all means a tough one. And appears to be steadily failing at the vote. I can only hypothesize that it is for the same concerns as my own without reading the debate thread.

The aims and objectives are quite admirable, and there is no taking that away from the author. The draft reads well, and knowing EnE it's hard to think for even a moment that he has not put a considerable amount of effort into this draft.

My largest concern when reading this always fell back to the same thing namely this;

1. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including, but not limited to,

a) falsely declaring to be a non-combatant,
b) deceiving to be in distress,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce without the intention to do so;

2. FURTHER PROHIBITS combatants of member states from issuing any messages of intent (e.g. offer of surrender) that are meant to deceive, and falsely using any signs, signals, emblems and/or insignia, to seek protection and/or protected status, especially those,
Click to expand...

Related to clause 1:

Many operations to capture war criminals would involve ruses similar to the above. Many nations pride themselves on the ability to have covert units enter a neighboring nation and capture someone to bring them to justice. Were this proposal to be adopted, one would have to wait until a period of war and aggression has ended before utilizing such tactics and techniques. However, where it be necessary to capture/kill an aggressor to end such a war period... it removes a legitimate tactic to do so.

Related to clause 2:

My concern here is a minor nitpick but a nitpick none the less. In a war against terror, whereby the good guys have been injured badly, should they acquire (purely for examples sake) a red cross uniform, and change clothes in order to prevent further harm and seek aide this clause reads to me as punishing them for these actions, specifically;

and falsely using any signs, signals, emblems and/or insignia, to seek protection
Click to expand...

Ministerial Review​

While I have nothing but respect for EnE and enjoy working with them where I can, I have to weight up the benefits vs the downsides to such an act. While my fears regarding clause 1 can be easily put to rest in the knowledge that there are still tactics that would allow for this not to be majorly problematic, clause 2, seems to be unfortunately affect the good guys as much as the bad. While it's intention is clear, it's consequences are quite wide reaching.

As a whole, I (for the second time in a row oddly) would recommend TNP ABSTAIN from this vote. The proposal is inherently designed to do good, but fails in certain aspects, and as with warfare, it's never easy to judge the rules of battle which always sadly, seem to fall more on the righteous party than the aggressor.

THIS IS A RECOMMENDED VOTE ONLY, PLEASE VOTE FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN OR PRESENT BELOW AS DESIRED.
 
I am against this.

For the record, my current WA is in Nazi Europe.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top