[GA - Passed] Command Responsibility

Shamelessly commending the now sizable body of law intended to regulate conduct during armed conflict for the benefit of all;

Troubled that there yet exist entities that would rather ignore atrocities for their own benefit rather than act upon their moral and legal duty to prevent atrocities actively;

Appalled that there are so few protections for those subordinates ethically trapped between the duty to obey orders and the duty to obey the law; and

Avowing that commanders who permit atrocities are in such wanton dereliction of their duties as to have acquiesced to their subordinate’s heinous acts, and thus have besmirched the honor and privilege of command;

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following:

Article I. Commander Duties

1. A “commander” is an individual with either de jure authority to control the conduct of members of an armed force, be it regular military, militia, irregular, or other form of paramilitary force, or de facto control of the same.
   
   
2. Commanders have an affirmative duty to prevent or punish their subordinates for violating World Assembly law regulating conduct during armed conflict.
   
   
3. Commanders are criminally liable for:
   
   1. ordering any act in knowing contravention of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict, or
      
      
   2. failing to take necessary action to prevent or punish subordinate violations of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict where the commander knows or has information that allows them to conclude that their subordinates were about to or had contravened those World Assembly laws.
      
4. No member state may permit a commander to retain any command after a court martial determines their dereliction of the above duties, notwithstanding other criminal penalties.
   
   
5. Nothing in this article precludes member states from independently enforcing higher military conduct standards for commanders.
   

Article II. Subordinate Rights and Duties

1. A subordinate has an affirmative duty to refuse any order from any commander that is manifestly illegal under World Assembly law.
   
   
2. A subordinate who complies with a commander’s reasonable interpretation of an arguable question of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict is not criminally liable for contravening that law, unless there is sufficient evidence that the subordinate knew or should have known that the order was unlawful.
   
   
3. A subordinate who relies in good faith on a commander’s incorrect or misleading knowledge of a situation or other facts may raise that reliance as a partial or total defense against their contravention of World Assembly law regarding conduct during armed conflict, unless there is sufficient evidence that the subordinate knew or should have known the actual facts of the situation. Prior failures of military intelligence or situational awareness alone do not constitute sufficient evidence.
   
   
4. No member state may penalize subordinates who refuse, in good faith, to obey an order of uncertain legality under World Assembly law regulating conduct during armed conflict, even if the order is legal in hindsight. Member states will take all prudent steps to treat evidence or investigations of a subordinate's lawful refusal under this Article as privileged information, and may not include it in a subordinate's service record.
   

Article III. Member State Duties

1. Member states must routinely train and educate their military personnel about their rights and obligations under World Assembly law regarding military action.
   
   
2. Member states must interpret the language of this resolution liberally where necessary to effectuate the policy goals of holding commanders and soldiers accountable for their actions and disincentivizing culpability in war crimes.
   
   
3. Nothing in this resolution bars the World Assembly from defining the parameters of command responsibility for different violations of World Assembly law, provided those parameters further the goals of accountability for violation and incentives to obey international law.
   

Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

For

I think the proposal is well-intentioned, but significantly interferes with the command structure and discipline of a military. While there should be no room for war crimes, I wonder how far up the command different interpretations of orders would go, and to what extent questions would be raised. I think it is enough to simply ban war crimes (and I hope there is already such a resolution).

Against.

For
Very comprehensive. Covers all levels of responsibility along the chain of command. Acknowledges the potential for both rogue commanders and rogue subordinates and distributes onus appropriately.

El Fiji Grande:

I think it is enough to simply ban war crimes (and I hope there is already such a resolution).

Click to expand...

I went looking today, and there doesn't seem to be one comprehensive piece of legislation to define/ban 'war crimes'. There are several pieces of legislation that define certain acts as war crimes, but no overarching rule-book.

Also, I agree with you to some degree, that in the middle of conflict, the likelihood of being able to stop for an ethical debate in life and death situations would be pretty tough to imagine. That is nullified a bit by the mandatory education piece. We have to assume that everyone will have a thorough understanding where the line exists, going in. There's also the option for commanders to deal with subordinate offenses, after the fact.

I share your concerns that the higher up the chain, the less likely the accountability. (I immediately thought of Kubrick's Paths of Glory as I read this)

All that aside, I think putting some formal rules into effect is still a good idea.

Against,

War Crimes and Atrocities are not defined.

bowloftoast:

All that aside, I think putting some formal rules into effect is still a good idea.

Click to expand...

I think these rules will add a degree of indecision to a soldier's mindset, which could wrongfully endanger lives. I feel that these rules only make sense in helping to prevent atrocities that are clearly and absurdly over the line. With borderline cases, soldiers may be forced to make decisions based on survival that their commanding officers will later deem offenses only to cover themselves from punishment. These rules would foster a culture of hesitation and double-guessing in the line of battle.

El Fiji Grande:

I think these rules will add a degree of indecision to a soldier's mindset, which could wrongfully endanger lives. I feel that these rules only make sense in helping to prevent atrocities that are clearly and absurdly over the line. With borderline cases, soldiers may be forced to make decisions based on survival that their commanding officers will later deem offenses only to cover themselves from punishment. These rules would foster a culture of hesitation and double-guessing in the line of battle.

Click to expand...

Yeah, fair comment. It would certainly help if we had a clear, defining legislation that explained exactly what constitutes a 'war crime'.

For

WA: New Bremerton

Against

WA on NPA

Against.

WA: on NPA

Against.

For; WA is Syrixia

For

As always I would love to hear your reasons for the votes you have cast. I cannot engage with people against this resolution if I don’t know why you’re opposed. Thankfully Fiji has shared his opinion, and I suspect it’s shared at least in part by most reasonable objectors.

El Fiji Grande:

I think the proposal is well-intentioned, but significantly interferes with the command structure and discipline of a military. While there should be no room for war crimes, I wonder how far up the command different interpretations of orders would go, and to what extent questions would be raised. I think it is enough to simply ban war crimes (and I hope there is already such a resolution).

Against.

Click to expand...

The WA has several resolutions addressing war crimes. It is those resolutions that this one would expect commanders and soldiers to follow. Anyone who commands troops, at any level, is subject to these rules. The fact it is difficult to go after those higher up the chain is a fact with or without this resolution. Something being hard is not a reason not to do it. Discipline in the military is not subverted by a resolution mandating that soldiers do what they should be doing anyway, refusing unlawful orders. I would argue it is better for morale and better for loyalty if soldiers know that their commanders respect international law and they can count on the orders they give.

Dreadton:

Against,

War Crimes and Atrocities are not defined.

Click to expand...

Not in this resolution, but in other existing ones, as I have said. They don’t need to be defined in this resolution, and you should do the research. I hope you reconsider your objection.

El Fiji Grande:

I think these rules will add a degree of indecision to a soldier's mindset, which could wrongfully endanger lives. I feel that these rules only make sense in helping to prevent atrocities that are clearly and absurdly over the line. With borderline cases, soldiers may be forced to make decisions based on survival that their commanding officers will later deem offenses only to cover themselves from punishment. These rules would foster a culture of hesitation and double-guessing in the line of battle.

Click to expand...

The resolution actually offers protection for soldiers in this situation. As long as they made a reasoned judgment and it can be shown that the case could go either way, their good faith effort to do the right thing won’t be used against them. Commanders specifically cannot throw them under the bus. The mandatory education component of the resolution combined with this protection should make the soldier’s decision much easier, but I would again state that this resolution doesn’t introduce moral dilemmas into the lives of soldiers, those would always exist but without the support of this law. Creating clear expectations and protections for soldiers in this situation shouldn’t be seen as a creator of conflict.

I am honestly confused by the opposition to this resolution, it seems wholly reasonable and long overdue.

For

Vote is 7-5, vote is cast For

For

For

For