Occupied Territories Protection Act (OPTA)

dmb615

TNPer
Occupied Territories Protection Act

The Democratic Union, preserving the delicacy of peace and democracy between nations both domestic and foreign to the assembly, must recognize that land is an important tool for both negotiating peace and waging war. With this in mind, it would be in the best interest of the Union to make a stand against seizing land by the use of force.

In order to begin to create peace for today's and for the future nations of the North Pacific, a series of legislation must be drafted to ensure the safety of the civilians and of the environment in the occupied territory. This act is to:

I. Create a series of laws and boundaries on the topic of occupied territories achieved through the use of force or through threats.

II. Set up a series of consequences for those who break the laws and boundaries set by the act.

III. Create a plan for military, diplomatic, and humanitarian action for the conflict this is being applied to.

IV. Define the political borders between the conflicting groups and to return the occupied territories to the parent nation.



Section I of the Occupied Territories Protection Act (OTPA) is to create a series of binding laws and boundaries on the topic of occupied territories and the country that shows aggression toward them. Nations within the Democratic Union must abide by the laws set by the document and the Democratic Union must be able to enforce the laws (Section II) set by the document. The laws are as follows:

I. No nation must claim territories as their own if they have gained control over said territories if military aggression is used against the parent nation.

II. If seized by force and no claims by the aggressor have been made on it, then the land must not be altered, changed, destroyed, or built upon unless it is a temporary structure that can be restored to the scape it was before.

III. Religious structures, hospitals, refugee camps, and government buildings must not be destroyed, altered, or slandered in anyway.

IV. All prisoners of war (POW) must be returned to the parent nation if they were captured inside the territory that was taken over. All POWs must be treated humanely without outrages of dignity.

V. All threatening acts will be investigated by the Democratic Union and punishment will be dealt according to the final verdict. Coercive acts include the threats of: economic sanctions, military action, or attacks on citizens (physical, discriminatory, verbal, or emotional) in order to gain land.

Section II of the OTPA ensures that the laws stated in Section I are followed by using consequences against the aggressor and making sure that a peaceful solution is met. The laws and consequences are to be enforced by the Democratic Union. Such punishments may include: probation, exile from the DU, economic sanctions, military aggression, and more. The consequence and punishment must be seen as a fair and appropriate one by the Chairman and the general assembly. The Chairman has the power to veto the chosen punishment, but the general assembly can overturn that veto with a 2/3 majority. Nations that did not support the consequence can choose to either partake or not to partake in the ruling. For example, if a series of economic sanctions are placed on the aggressor by the DU, individual nations can choose either to commit to the plan or they can decide not to go through with it. With this in mind, it could leave the Democratic Union with the ability to make it legal by the standards set, but can also mean that the DU is all talk with no real ability for action. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman will be put with the duty of raising resources or support for action.

Section III of the OPTA creates a plan to make sure that if the situation arises, the Democratic Union is able to quickly and effectively combat the issue. The Democratic Union will be able to deploy humanitarian, diplomatic, and military forces if need be; the forces and tactics used by these forces should be overseen by the Strategic Commander or the Chairman of the DU. The number one priority of the forces deployed must be keeping the innocent civilians safe and ensuring that democracy is kept within the country. The forces deployed are volunteers given to the DU as they are to be used in the situation that Strategic Commander sees fit relating the to crisis. Displaced civilians are to be treated with respect, dignity, and their well being at mind. Understanding this, the Strategic Commander must make sure that the forces deployed are doing their best to maintain the standard the DU has set and must make sure all forces are properly trained. Steps to such territorial crises can be simplified to four basic steps for humanitarian, diplomatic, and military aid.

I. Understand the situation on hand; this includes all intelligence from many different sources.

II. Decide on the appropriate action. This will be done by the general assembly of the Democratic Union

III. Begin the movement of forces to and fro; debrief and train all members of the forces on the correct rules according to the situation on hand.

IV. Gain support for the cause at hand. This can include funds, resources, troops, and civilian recognition of the crisis.

The final step is to recall forces if seen necessary. While aid is in the territory, the DU can collectively decide whether or not to further explore the situation and how it can be improved. Examples of this could include the building of settlements for the refugees, adding infrastructure to towns or water sources, public hospitals and clinics, public schools, and financial stability. This can all be refused by the parent nation if they do not wish for the aid currently.

Section IV of the Occupied Territories Protection Act is to define a political boundary between one party and the other. The main goal of the OTPA is to make sure that the occupied territory is used for peace and is returned to the parent nation. The territory would be given back to the nation or group that it was seized from or the last nation or group that held legal claim over the land. The political boundary would be corrected and the land would be used for negotiating peace with the group that it was taken from. A new border would be drawn up that would repair the damage that was done to both nations. Most of the time, the border would stay the same as before, but in some situations where both sides believe that they legally claim the same land, it can be split into even portions of that land.
 
I like this. It supports the ideals of the Democratic Union. Would this only apply to DU members, or would it be a policy declaration of how we plan on handling all occupied territories across the region?
 
Seems okay overall. Could use a bit of a clean up and some formatting. We need to keep in mind that we want these acts to still be flexible enough in application to allow for RP - and to allow for futher expansion as necessary.
 
Scandigrad, I can't say for sure. It would definitely apply for DU members, but as for other nations, I can't say for sure. This is heavily inspired by the UN Security Council Resolution 242 which dealt with Israel occupying the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the west bank from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria and East Jerusalem. I am hoping this can set some sort of boundaries without having one superpower take over smaller of less powerful nations.

McM, I'm not the best at writing official documents, so if you want to make any changes, be my guest. As for the RP flexibility, I am unsure what you mean. Are there too many rules and laws that bind the nations to a strict set of protocol? If there is any way to improve, please tell me immediately.
 
I was thinking about solutions to the flexibility of the act and was thinking whether or not Section IV about redefining the boundary should be tweaked or cut altogether. Some feedback on this idea would be greatly appreciated.
 
Section IV. has been cut from the document. I think that should free up some space to allow a bit more role playing.
 
I'm not a DU member yet (though I'm considering membership), so I must ask that you excuse my presence in this debate. However, may I ask: would this bill, as proposed, prohibit DU member states from conquering land, or would it only simply prohibit conquering land lest the annexation is agreed upon in a treaty signed by both the expansionist and parent state?
I note that it has been over 10 days since this was last debated, but this has not yet been voted on (nor taken off the table), correct?
 
Alta Italia:
I'm not a DU member yet (though I'm considering membership), so I must ask that you excuse my presence in this debate. However, may I ask: would this bill, as proposed, prohibit DU member states from conquering land, or would it only simply prohibit conquering land lest the annexation is agreed upon in a treaty signed by both the expansionist and parent state?
I note that it has been over 10 days since this was last debated, but this has not yet been voted on (nor taken off the table), correct?
1. You should totally join :lol:

2. Agreed, we shouldn't be restricted from taking land, and/or conducting military RPs, which, frankly, are really really fun. But still:

A: All DU nations conducting in military RPs should present their casus belli to the DU beforehand.

B: All DU nations conducting in military RPs should conduct peaceful negotiations between them and [INSERT ENEMY HERE] before going or resorting to war.

C: All DU nations should, if they want land, attempt a land PURCHASE first, and then resort to war if:

I- They refuse to accept your offer
II- It's necessary, period, to resort to war

That's how I see it. Hopefully I haven't just reiterated the act though, lol.
 
Two quick questions:
DU rulings and decisions only apply to DU member states, correct?
Also, how long do RP wars typically last?
I am very interested in the Great North Pacific Trade Route, as the vast majority of Alta Italia's economy is centered on trade, ports, rights to trade and ship in Alta Italian ports and waters, and shipbuilding.
 
1. Yes.

2. From my experience, around 1-2 weeks IRL time.

3. Be sure to apply on the thread for it! I'll approve you straightaway; you pass all security checks!
 
I would like to remind everyone that this is a Democratic Union thread, which is discussing a DU Proposal laid out by dmb615. I would also like to emphasize that Syrixia is an observer, and does not speak on the views of the Union. Please be more vigilant in the way you word things to make sure that it is clear that you are not speaking on behalf of the DU. tl;dr this is me politely asking non-DU members to not comment in this thread, and to forward their questions to a more appropriate setting.

Syrixia:
we shouldn't be restricted from taking land, and/or conducting military RPs, which, frankly, are really really fun. But still:

A: All DU nations conducting in military RPs should present their casus belli to the DU beforehand.

B: All DU nations conducting in military RPs should conduct peaceful negotiations between them and [INSERT ENEMY HERE] before going or resorting to war.

C: All DU nations should, if they want land, attempt a land PURCHASE first, and then resort to war if:

I- They refuse to accept your offer
II- It's necessary, period, to resort to war

This to me sounds both idealistic and hawkish in nature. I am unconvinced that these are values that the Democratic Union should be striving for. No DU member nation should seek out war, or taking territory. To be blunt, yes, I do believe that DU member nations should be forbidden from unilaterally taking territory. I can get more behind your point for presenting your case for war to the DU, under the condition that a member-nation utilizes it to seek approval for the conflict. A similar example would be seeking UN approval before waging war. On your last point, if land is not for sale, and you have to bully your way into taking it by force, that is neither democratic, nor respecting national sovereignty.

Alta Italia:
However, may I ask: would this bill, as proposed, prohibit DU member states from conquering land, or would it only simply prohibit conquering land lest the annexation is agreed upon in a treaty signed by both the expansionist and parent state
dmb, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I interpret it is that it does outright forbid conquering land, and leaves annexation to a case by case basis. Certain forms of annexation are legitimate, however it depends on whether or not any form of coercion is involved. If I'm just putting words in the proposal's mouth, I think it needs to read more along those lines. Also, obviously the enforcement of this proposal will only be towards Democratic Union member-states, but the values of it will be something that under my chairmanship will be something we will try to maintain throughout the international community.
 
No member of the DU should be actively seeking out conquering, invading, or attaining any new land illegally, through war, without owner nation's approval/request, etc. It goes against this union, as well as democracy. We are not a waring union. War does not promote democracy and peace. It is the exact opposite.
 
Egalotir:
No member of the DU should be actively seeking out conquering, invading, or attaining any new land illegally, through war, without owner nation's approval/request, etc. It goes against this union, as well as democracy. We are not a waring union. War does not promote democracy and peace. It is the exact opposite.
Pretty much this. Olvern would stand against any attempt at undue interventionism, tantamount to imperialism.
 
Egalotir:
No member of the DU should be actively seeking out conquering, invading, or attaining any new land illegally, through war, without owner nation's approval/request, etc. It goes against this union, as well as democracy. We are not a waring union. War does not promote democracy and peace. It is the exact opposite.
Just a question, but how does imperialism go against democracy?
 
Andrew:
Egalotir:
No member of the DU should be actively seeking out conquering, invading, or attaining any new land illegally, through war, without owner nation's approval/request, etc. It goes against this union, as well as democracy. We are not a waring union. War does not promote democracy and peace. It is the exact opposite.
Just a question, but how does imperialism go against democracy?
"Imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonisation, use of military force, or other means".

a history of colonization shows that the native people have always been treated as second class at best. Military force and war displaces people, it ruins infrastructure, etc etc. It disrupts the entire democratic process when the government has to go into emergency mode because of a war. It disrupts the nation being invaded. It just simply not the course of action any DU member should take.
 
I reread the legislation again. Can we add a provision about using coercion to gain territory? There does not appear to be anything about threatening to use force to gain land, and I would like to see that added.
 
Scandigrad:
I reread the legislation again. Can we add a provision about using coercion to gain territory? There does not appear to be anything about threatening to use force to gain land, and I would like to see that added.
coercion through economic threats should also be covered
 
I apologize for my absence, but I hope everyone had a wonderful week. To clear some things up, this proposal does not prohibit war or any military RPs, it just makes gaining territory through the use of force illegal and highly frown-upon. I understand that the DU is a body that wishes peace before war, and this document only reinforces that idea. This in no way, shape, or form denies the right of war in the DU, but makes the occupation of foreign territories more clear so that there is some guidance to the RPs of the future.

I'll be sure to add a new section dealing with coercion. I should have everything ready by the beginning of the new year. I want to make sure everything is solid before this is put up to vote, if that is alright with the Chairman.
 
I added a small part about coercion. I added the economic and military threats, but also added a detail about attacks against citizens which include discrimination, verbal, physical, and emotional abuse.
 
Thought about it a bit. I just realized the "right to go to war" is just an excuse made by "war-ists" to make wars a lot.

I, thus, hereby take back my previous statement and extend my full, unconditional support to this act.
 
Back
Top