[DRAFT] Protecting Distressed Combatants

[Kaboom]

Title is two characters too long for submission but it's the best I have at the moment.

Protecting Distressed Combatants​

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed By: Kaboomlandia​

This esteemed World Assembly,

Noting that often during times of war, active combatants of a nation's forces will be required to evacuate their vessel due to mechanical failure or attacks by enemy forces,

Realizing that armed forces evacuating their vehicle are not only unable to defend themselves, but make easy targets for enemy combatants,

Expressing a desire to allow combatants in distress the dignity of being left alive in the process of evacuation,

Hereby,

1. Defines "military vessel" as any type of marine, aerial, or space vehicle used to transport combatants.
   
2. Defines "distressed combatant" as any member of a nation's armed forces who is forced to evacuate a military vessel due to mechanical failure or attack by an opposing nation.
   
3. Prohibits a nation's armed forces from intentionally targeting evacuating combatants from a damaged vessel;
   
4. Permits the armed forces of a nation to take evacuated soldiers as prisoners of war. The captured soldiers must first be given an opportunity to surrender their arms pursuant to extant World Assembly law.
   
5. Bans armed forces from intentionally feigning distress in order to launch a surprise attack;
   
6. Notes that should an evacuating combatant attempt to engage in hostilities, such as a parachuting pilot firing at enemy aircraft, their protection under the terms of the resolution will end;
   
7. Clarifies that paratroopers and other forces who intentionally evacuate a military vessel in order to engage in battle are not protected by the terms of this resolution.

Basically, what this proposal does is ban nations at war from shooting at ejected parachutists (note: does not include paratroopers. Nations can fire at those all they like) and blowing lifeboats out of the water with battleships (again, exempts nations that are using them to fake distress and attack). In the unlikely event that a plane gets shot down and someone decides to take a parachute and jump out the door over a warring country to save their own life - that gets them protected, too.

So, here's a quick guide:
- Taking prisoners of war = fine
- Shooting parachutists out of the sky = not fine
- Using lifeboats full of evacuating soldiers for target practice = not fine
- Attacking paratroopers = fine
- Attacking a lifeboat that looks suspiciously like it's actually a hidden attack = fine.

There is some RL precedent for this in the Geneva Conventions, though mine goes further to include life rafts and spacecraft escape pods.

Spoiler: First Draft

Protecting Distressed Combatants​

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed By: Kaboomlandia​

This esteemed World Assembly,

Noting that often during times of war, active combatants of a nation's forces will be required to evacuate their vessel due to mechanical failure or attacks by enemy forces,

Realizing that armed forces evacuating their vehicle are not only unable to defend themselves, but make easy targets for enemy combatants,

Expressing a desire to allow combatants in distress the dignity of being left alive in the process of evacuation,

Hereby,

1. Defines "military vessel" as any type of marine, aerial, or space vehicle used to transport combatants.
   
2. Defines "distressed combatant" as any member of a nation's armed forces who is forced to evacuate a military vessel due to mechanical failure or attack by an opposing nation.
   
3. Prohibits a nation's armed forces from intentionally targeting evacuating combatants from a damaged vessel;
   
4. Permits the armed forces of a nation to take evacuated soldiers as prisoners of war. The captured soldiers must first be given an opportunity to surrender their arms pursuant to extant World Assembly law.
   
5. Exempts armed forces from the terms of this resolution if they have valid reason to believe that enemy forces are feigning a situation of distress in order to launch a surprise attack;
   
6. Notes that should an evacuating combatant attempt to engage in hostilities, such as a parachuting pilot firing at enemy aircraft, their protection under the terms of the resolution will end;
   
7. Clarifies that paratroopers and other forces who intentionally evacuate a military vessel in order to engage in battle are not protected by the terms of this resolution.

 

[Darcania]

Clarifies that paratroopers and other forces who intentionally evacuate a military vessel in order to engage in battle are not protected by the terms of this resolution.
...
- Attacking a lifeboat that looks suspiciously like it's actually a hidden attack = fine.

This looks like it's open for abuse by a nation that could simply say, "But they looked like they were planning a hidden attack", imho. Is it possible instead to directly ban doing the hidden attack instead?

 

[Pallaith]

I think the only problem with this one is people not thinking it's a big enough deal for international law, seems like the most likely objection in my view. And of course people who think all is fair in love and war. But I do like it! Not sure how I would fix it because I'm not sure there's anything wrong with it. Darcania's point seems like it needs addressing though.

 

[Kaboom]

Changed.

 

[Pallaith]

I still like it, but have some thoughts. Your definitions seem to exclude land vehicles the way I read this, am I reading it wrong? This is a style argument, but I don't like using a specific example in your penultimate clause. Is that common in these resolutions?

 

[Imperium Anglorum]

Kaboom, if you're still pursuing this, I'm somewhat concerned about the comments which Gruen made as Schutzen-whatever-phalia and West Ruk-something-land on Europeia's Vinage drafting centre. I remember posting something similar to this on the GA forums recently. SP noted at the time that there was significant reason to believe that the issue was already covered by one of his resolutions.

 

[Kaboom]

Kaboom, if you're still pursuing this, I'm somewhat concerned about the comments which Gruen made as Schutzen-whatever-phalia and West Ruk-something-land on Europeia's Vinage drafting centre. I remember posting something similar to this on the GA forums recently. SP noted at the time that there was significant reason to believe that the issue was already covered by one of his resolutions.

I dropped it after that comment came up, because I hadn't seen the term "hors de combat" before and didn't realize what RoS did. I had previously looked at that resolution but didn't know what that term was.