[GA - Defeated] Preventing Unjust Warfare

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Preventing Unjust Warfare
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: United Massachusetts | Onsite Topic​
Affirming the fundamental truth that not all armed conflict is just and that nations hold a fundamental responsibility to discern between just and unjust warfare,

Noting that while these decisions may certainly present difficult challenges, a series of procedures ought to be established on the international level to prevent such unjust conflict,

Believing such an aim to be fitting with the stated goals of this Assembly -- namely, to spread peace and goodwill worldwide,

The General Assembly, with the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the "initiation of transnational military action" as the act of disturbing a transnational peace, either through a declaration of war, invasion, or another hostile and violent measure across international borders,



  2. Prohibits member-states from initiating transnational military action:
    1. except for the purposes of:
      1. self-defense against a hostile actor, or the defense of another nation, where undeniable and concrete evidence establishes that said hostile actor has initiated transnational military action, or will imminently do so,

      2. preventing the well-documented, widespread, and systematic abuse of human rights, as established under international law, or where there is well-documented evidence that such an abuse will likely occur,

      3. assisting a competent national authority in combating a violent non-state actor within their territory, with the permission of said competent authority,

      4. the fulfillment of binding and pre-existing national obligations under treaty or international law, or the exercise of rights specifically afforded to nations under extant international law,


    2. in violation of their legal obligations and agreements, both internally and internationally,

    3. where its costs, in human life, economic output, and political turmoil, far outweigh its expected returns,

    4. or before all feasible diplomatic and/or non-violent efforts to end hostilities have failed, excepting those situations where an immediate response is needed to neutralize a proven direct and imminent threat, and,




  3. Further prohibits non-state actors, excluding those salaried by a state and acting formally on its behalf, from initiating transnational military action in a World Assembly member-state.
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!
 
IFV:
The proposal, while well meaning, is hampered by various holes and unachievable standards. Namely, Clause 2.1.1 relies on 'undeniable and concrete evidence' which is not easily obtainable if possible at all, especially in situations where bad faith and third party actors are excepted to be involved but proof is not totally present. Clause 2.1.3 appears to be a miswritten as it never fully clarifies that nondomestic forces engaging the local nonstate actor would be required to satisfy this however domestic forces engaging on a local nonstate actor would not need to satisfy this requirement as it would not be transnational. Clause 2.3 becomes problematic as a nation's predictions may not reflect reality and the results of a transnational conflict can vary greatly between predicted result and actual result, especially in scenarios where a multitude of factors for this decision are unknown or only generally specified.

In accordance with the above, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.
 
Last edited:
Don't hate it, Im not a fan of the type of proposal this is but I really dont have much issue with it.

Tentatively For
 
Against. Lack of definitions present in the resolution.

Also, horrible formatting. Could have at least switched to roman numerals.
 
Last edited:
Not only does this fail to truly address its goal, it fails to promote non-violent solutions. A declaration of war should be a last resort, not a first response.
Against.
 
@SolidAir I think your concerns are addressed in Section 2.4 of the resolution in regards to addressing it as a last resort.

I do however find it lacking in providing a full-throated support for non-violent solutions. Format, while horrible, I can deal with. Definitions are generally lacking, but some of these terms (in this context) have been defined previously.

Personally, I would like a resubmit with formatting edits and a better description/outright support for alternatives, however:

Tentatively For.
 
Praetor:
Also, horrible formatting. Could have at least switched to roman numerals.
Click to expand...
Really? Section 2.1.3 is a lot easier to quote than Section II.I.III. I like this style of formatting. Even so, how is that form of pretension even an argument?
 
2.1.1 relies on 'undeniable and concrete evidence' which is rarely possible. For example, think of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria to which the US responded with force. Was the attack carried out by the Syrian government (backed by Russia), or was it a false-flag effort by the rebels themselves, as some conspiracy theorists would claim? There will hardly if ever be evidence of the nature required by the resolution.
2.1.3 is not a necessary point within the definition provided of 'initiating transnational military action,' as it is not transnational by nature.
2.3 is also problematic, as the results of war are often unknown to all prior to its conclusion. It's also very difficult to measure, even if one could accurately predict the outcome of all wars, as you'd be literally putting a price on human life.

Against.
 
ravenclawnat\:
TNP nation is not a WA nation currently due to NPA mission but I would vote against.
Click to expand...
NPAers are able to vote. You must state what your WA is unless it is a matter of OPSEC. I would consult with your superiors in the NPA to see if it's OPSEC or not. That being said, it doesn't take a lot of time to find out where the NPA is deployed...
El Fiji Grande:
Really? Section 2.1.3 is a lot easier to quote than Section II.I.III. I like this style of formatting. Even so, how is that form of pretension even an argument?
Click to expand...
I was saying it would be better to have 1.ii.1 or something similar. I find it confusing to read currently. And it's an argument because I made it?
 
Last edited:
Against.

Clause 2.1.4. and 2.2. are contradictory towards each other if you realize. I will be writing a dispatch about this soon and will be updating shortly on my stance.

EDIT: The official stance of this government pertaining to this resolution at vote is out:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1240156

In short? This resolution is full of holes, flaws and exploits which can promote unjustified warfare among neighbouring nations and condemn the very new world order that we have set upon. I plead to the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs to announce its stance to reject this resolution in its entirety in support for an "Against" vote.

EDIT #2: Possible "House of Cards" offence. Given my discussion with UM over the matter of Clause 2a(iv), this resolution could very well be illegal in that sense - and that's not even mentioning the other problems that I have written up in my dispatch.

This has consolidated my Against vote on this resolution.
 
Last edited:
Against. The prohibition of war by non-state entities is problematic, as it fails to take into account the status of subnational entities, such as free/independently-governed provinces.
 
"What nonsense is this?" asked members of the Committee of WA Affairs as they read through the proposal. "The proposer clearly has not thought this through and hurriedly came up with a proposal to address an issue of high importance." Mr Soloman, who is the Foreign Minister of PotatoFarmers, even questioned the proposal's legitimacy and asked how did it pass the delegates' check to be sent to the floor for voting.

The Committee has unanimously agreed to vote Against (a rarity considering how diverse the Committee is) the resolution. TL;DR, the Committee has found too many flaws, bugs and loopholes in the resolution that it feels that it does not deserve any chance of consideration. "Poor definition, contradictory clauses, blatantly going against other GA resolutions. These are just some of the problems of this resolution which should not be given any due respect," said Mr Soloman, in a statement to the people.

The full details of our explanation can be found here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1240475. Do upvote our dispatch as this would encourage our Committee to write better dispatches that help other member states of TNP to make wise decisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top