[GA - Passed] Wartime Healthcare Protections

The World Assembly,
Acknowledging previously passed basic protections for medical facilities inside areas of conflict;
Believing that these protections are not sufficiently comprehensive;
Appalled by the thought of attacking people in need of or providing medical care;
Seeking to ensure that such people are safeguarded against unnecessary violence even during a war;
Approving of similar measures already protecting civilians stipulated in GAR #317;

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,
   1. a non-civilian as someone in the employment of a nation's military forces,
      
   2. a patient as a non-civilian suffering from a medical ailment requiring the attention of medical professionals,
      
   3. medical personnel as those who provide medical treatment or triage, who are either unarmed or bear light arms exclusively for protection of themselves and patients currently under their care, and
      
   4. a medical facility as a site used for medical treatment or triage, and the associated infrastructure, which bears clearly visible markings indicating its status as such;
2. Makes it a war crime to attack a medical facility, while knowing of its existence, in a manner that is damaging and has the potential to cause fatalities, except where the medical facility is also used for military acts of war;
   
3. Forbids member nations' military forces from:
   1. using violence against non-civilian medical personnel providing medical treatment or triage in a medical facility, or against patients being provided with medical treatment or triage in a medical facility, or
      
   2. 1. preventing a patient from accessing a medical facility,
         
      2. removing a patient from a medical facility, or
         
      3. preventing medical personnel from treating a patient in a medical facility,
      where inability to receive medical treatment or triage would endanger the patient's life, unless doing so is necessary for preservation of the patient's long-term health; and
4. Forbids the calculated use of medical personnel or patients as living shields to protect a strategic military target.
   
   Co-authored by Araraukar.

Click to expand...

1. 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!

The proposal aims to protect medical facilities and the rights of injured combatants during wartime. The GA has previously passed resolution protecting civilians, and this would be another step in ensuring that the rights of people in general are protecting even in the chaotic times of war. The passing of this proposal would help to further strengthen the protection of personal rights during a wartime scenario, by protecting the access to medical care and preventing medical facilities from being targeted, thus ensuring the least possible casualties in armed conflicts.
In light of the above reasons, the Ministry recommends a For vote for this proposal.

From me it is a for. A nice proposal helping to protect the rights of medical properties in war which makes actual sense.

Against. There are numerous issues with this proposal which I pointed out while the author seeked feedback on this proposal on our forums (which I appreciate).

First and foremost, is the application of this resolution in interactions with non-members. This provides no incentive for non-members to provide restraint in interactions as member nations will be unable to retaliate. While there are limits on interactions between members and non-members which are reasonable, these apply in situations which require foreplanning and will not happen in the heat of the moment (and thus should a non-member take these measures, they have time to take correcting action (eg. using child soldiers).

Secondly, this resolution has a loophole big enough to drive an ambulance through. Say a nation provides means for their soldiers to ingest a solution which puts them in a position where they require immediate medical treatment which only that nation is able to provide (whether that be other nations not having the anti-dote, or using multiple solutions and the solider not knowing which solution they ingest (and as such, not knowing which antidote they need)). As such, the other nations would be required to release these soldiers so that they may receive proper medical treatment. This would be advantageous for soldiers to use when they are in a poor tactical situation and are unable to evacuate, are going to be captured, etc.

for

WAN not in TNP so I can't vote, but I'm for this proposal nonetheless. Just commenting on some things said here.

Praetor:

First and foremost, is the application of this resolution in interactions with non-members. This provides no incentive for non-members to provide restraint in interactions as member nations will be unable to retaliate.

Click to expand...

Is it not reasonable that even patients/medical personnel in non-member-nations deserve basic human rights (which I feel is what is provided by this proposal), regardless of their parent nations membership? In my opinion, at least, I find it unreasonable to claim that "since non-member-states are not held to the same standard, it should not be applied when member-states are at war with these non-member-states." Yes, if a nation who is not a member of the World Assembly attacks medical facilities of a member-nation in order to exploit this proposal's ideal of not attacking back, it would be a tragedy. But is it not equally unethical to retaliate in such a way that puts patients and medical personnel at risk? War has a certain formality and etiquette to it, beyond all the bloodshed, and Maowi's proposal creates a law on basic human decency that should be supplied in war, regardless of membership. By setting such a law into effect in an organization that contains such a large portion of nations, it should hopefully formalize that basic wartime etiquette, which will spread to most reasonable non-member-states.

Praetor:

Secondly, this resolution has a loophole big enough to drive an ambulance through. Say a nation provides means for their soldiers to ingest a solution which puts them in a position where they require immediate medical treatment which only that nation is able to provide (whether that be other nations not having the anti-dote, or using multiple solutions and the solider not knowing which solution they ingest (and as such, not knowing which antidote they need)). As such, the other nations would be required to release these soldiers so that they may receive proper medical treatment. This would be advantageous for soldiers to use when they are in a poor tactical situation and are unable to evacuate, are going to be captured, etc.

Click to expand...

While not a totally absurd concern, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. I think a very small portion of reasonable nations would actually carry this out to take advantage of this loophole - and those that would would do so anyway, though perhaps to actually cause the "patients" here to become deceased in order to prevent capture, etc. Either way, I don't think this proposal really causes an issue in that department, and even if it did, I don't think it's a big enough deal to vote against for.

Morover:

Is it not reasonable that even patients/medical personnel in non-member-nations deserve basic human rights (which I feel is what is provided by this proposal), regardless of their parent nations membership? In my opinion, at least, I find it unreasonable to claim that "since non-member-states are not held to the same standard, it should not be applied when member-states are at war with these non-member-states." Yes, if a nation who is not a member of the World Assembly attacks medical facilities of a member-nation in order to exploit this proposal's ideal of not attacking back, it would be a tragedy. But is it not equally unethical to retaliate in such a way that puts patients and medical personnel at risk? War has a certain formality and etiquette to it, beyond all the bloodshed, and Maowi's proposal creates a law on basic human decency that should be supplied in war, regardless of membership. By setting such a law into effect in an organization that contains such a large portion of nations, it should hopefully formalize that basic wartime etiquette, which will spread to most reasonable non-member-states.

Click to expand...

Would you support similar legislation on restricting any nuclear warfare from member states regardless of whether a non-member state is engaging in it?

Regardless of the answer, the fact of the matter is that this is a rule based orders where you are hoping non-member states will comply despite there being no reason for compliance.

It's great to say that humans deserve rights and to stake out the moral high ground presuming I am going to disagree. But that's not what is at debate here. The debate is about whether enforcing prohibitions on members engaging with non-members will be more effective than not. The entire principle of MAD is that "if I do this, you can do this too, and no one will win". This provides an incentive for nations to not engage. If non-members are able to target medical personnel of member states without the member state being able to do so, why would they not do so? Let's not pretend that war is nice. It is war. These aren't people having a nice little duel over a small disagreement. It's war. Both sides don't like each other and have every interest of winning. If a non-member is able to target a member state's medical personnel knowing that the member state will not target the non-member state's medical personnel, they will do so.

While not a totally absurd concern, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. I think a very small portion of reasonable nations would actually carry this out to take advantage of this loophole - and those that would would do so anyway, though perhaps to actually cause the "patients" here to become deceased in order to prevent capture, etc. Either way, I don't think this proposal really causes an issue in that department, and even if it did, I don't think it's a big enough deal to vote against for.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's an effective rebuttal to say that "not a lot of people will take advantage of the loophole". It is clear that it exists. Nevertheless, this loophole was pointed out to the author prior to the resolution being submitted. They had the ability to rectify the issue.

Praetor:

Would you support similar legislation on restricting any nuclear warfare from member states regardless of whether a non-member state is engaging in it?

Regardless of the answer, the fact of the matter is that this is a rule based orders where you are hoping non-member states will comply despite there being no reason for compliance.

It's great to say that humans deserve rights and to stake out the moral high ground presuming I am going to disagree. But that's not what is at debate here. The debate is about whether enforcing prohibitions on members engaging with non-members will be more effective than not. The entire principle of MAD is that "if I do this, you can do this too, and no one will win". This provides an incentive for nations to not engage. If non-members are able to target medical personnel of member states without the member state being able to do so, why would they not do so? Let's not pretend that war is nice. It is war. These aren't people having a nice little duel over a small disagreement. It's war. Both sides don't like each other and have every interest of winning. If a non-member is able to target a member state's medical personnel knowing that the member state will not target the non-member state's medical personnel, they will do so.

Click to expand...

Well, you're certainly not wrong in your assertion that war is an ethical matter in the first place. Though your claim about mutually assured destruction is compelling, and perhaps even true, I cannot, in good faith, concede that not enforcing the proposal against all nations - regardless of membership - is an ethically correct choice. We should not bow down to the level of non-member-states applying unethical tactics by allowing member-states to apply similarly unethical tactics. Of course, this seems to be a fundamental difference between us two, so I won't push much further. Thanks for entertaining the idea I threw out there.

Praetor:

I don't think it's an effective rebuttal to say that "not a lot of people will take advantage of the loophole". It is clear that it exists. Nevertheless, this loophole was pointed out to the author prior to the resolution being submitted. They had the ability to rectify the issue.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, it's not. I do think it's a fair point that no reasonable nation would do so, though. I agree the author should have solved the issue while he still had a chance, but I still believe it to not be a significant enough issue to vote against for.

I do raise an argument, though: Any nation participating in this "loophole" would be in violation of the good faith portion of GAR#2 ("Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."). It is not good-faith to intentionally take advantage of unintended loopholes in resolutions. Where some may cry "creative compliance," I simply hear "noncompliance." You may disagree with me here, too, but it's worth considering.

Morover:

Well, you're certainly not wrong in your assertion that war is an ethical matter in the first place. Though your claim about mutually assured destruction is compelling, and perhaps even true, I cannot, in good faith, concede that not enforcing the proposal against all nations - regardless of membership - is an ethically correct choice. We should not bow down to the level of non-member-states applying unethical tactics by allowing member-states to apply similarly unethical tactics. Of course, this seems to be a fundamental difference between us two, so I won't push much further. Thanks for entertaining the idea I threw out there.

Click to expand...

The willingness to attempt to stake out the moral high ground while ignoring the that this will actually result in more lives being lost is extremely unfortunate. Unfortunately, the moral high ground won't help you when you're at war.

And now that I think about it, it would have been possible to come to reasonable limitations on interactions with non-members. The resolution could have banned targeting medical personnel of non-members unless the non-members had already targeted their medical personnel or there was evidence that the non-member would target their medical personnel (worded more eloquently and precisely of course but you get the gist of the idea).

Yeah, you're right, it's not. I do think it's a fair point that no reasonable nation would do so, though. I agree the author should have solved the issue while he still had a chance, but I still believe it to not be a significant enough issue to vote against for.

I do raise an argument, though: Any nation participating in this "loophole" would be in violation of the good faith portion of GAR#2 ("Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."). It is not good-faith to intentionally take advantage of unintended loopholes in resolutions. Where some may cry "creative compliance," I simply hear "noncompliance." You may disagree with me here, too, but it's worth considering.

Click to expand...

All member states must comply with resolutions. As such, there is no such thing as noncompliance. Only member states deluding themselves as such.

Praetor:

And now that I think about it, it would have been possible to come to reasonable limitations on interactions with non-members. The resolution could have banned targeting medical personnel of non-members unless the non-members had already targeted their medical personnel or there was evidence that the non-member would target their medical personnel (worded more eloquently and precisely of course but you get the gist of the idea).

Click to expand...

That would have been ideal, and if it fails to pass, I hope the author will consider putting that in there. I still maintain that it's not a big enough issue to vote against for, though.

Praetor:

All member states must comply with resolutions. As such, there is no such thing as noncompliance. Only member states deluding themselves as such.

Click to expand...

OOC certainly, but IC there are certainly some who don't adhere to the "incorruptible gnomes" argument. Regardless, I feel the loophole would be covered by good faith, which in either case would solve it.

Morover:

That would have been ideal, and if it fails to pass, I hope the author will consider putting that in there. I still maintain that it's not a big enough issue to vote against for, though.

Click to expand...

I never get this argument—we recognize that the legislation can be improved, however, we're not going to enact on it because it's too late.

I certainly think that causing more medical personnel to die is something that we should be trying to minimize. We know that making this change to the legislation will improve it. So let's make it happen.

OOC certainly, but IC there are certainly some who don't adhere to the "incorruptible gnomes" argument. Regardless, I feel the loophole would be covered by good faith, which in either case would solve it.

Click to expand...

Considering those who do not adhere to the incorruptible gnomes argument were nuked to the ground a while ago, I doubt they can really adhere to it anymore.

You can comply with the resolution in good faith, and still take advantage of loopholes. It at least has the author's tacit approval as they were aware of the loophole but chose to proceed. As such, they were not trying to prevent the scenario from happen.

Against

To Praetor re: interaction with non-member states -

I know we had this discussion extensively already in the WALL subforum, and I feel like I'm only repeating myself here, which probably means we've reached a standstill: but there are valid reasons for member nations being forbidden from using violence against civilians and civilian property which I think hold here too (violence against civilians can very often take place in the heat of the moment). For one thing, there exist - maybe IRL and certainly in NS - despotic regimes who care little about their population outside those useful in some economic or military manner, in which cases MAD doesn't really hold. And even beyond that, I still maintain that there are other ways of retaliating to such violence which doesn't resort to destruction of healthcare facilities but can pack a significant punch to the member nation's opponent. I find that preferable to defaulting to an uneasy, unstable balance reliant on wishing to avoid MAD of this sort.

Re: special ingestible solution -

First off, I think this loophole is not really a practical means for nations to avoid the regulations of this proposal. The antidote to this solution would have to be fairly cheap/easily available to be worthwhile to use on any useful scale as well as being rare enough not to be known of by the opponent, so I don't think it would take long for it to be found and produced by the attacking member nation if they don't have it already. And if the soldier does not know which solution they have taken, how will their hospital know, if their opponents' hospitals can't work it out either? Moreover, soldiers would have to be fairly close to a hospital or ambulance to get there in time, which is unlikely in the desperate situations in which they would resort to this.

But more importantly, allowing soldiers to get to a hospital to receive treatment does not prevent them from being taken as prisoners of war. Member nations' soldiers can still use physical force on patients, as long as it is not intended to hurt, damage, or kill them (the commonly accepted definition of violence) and medical personnel can only bear light arms for the protection of patients - so can only respond to violence from soldiers while the patient is still in need of medical attention.

I think a compromise would be reasonable in the former. MAD is not easy, it is not comfortable, but sometimes, it is the way forward. If despotic regimes are thinking of their population as nothing but a resource, that would be calculated in avoiding having member nations be able to target their medical personnel as medical personnel are a valuable resource. If there are other ways of retaliation which the non-member nation does not additionally have, you are welcome to list them.

As to an ingestible solution, I don't believe it would be particularly difficult. Provide a variety of solutions, (say A, B, and C, etc.) with respective antidotes of A', B', and C', etc.. Ingesting A and B' or C' is a fatal combination etc. You cannot just trial and error to guess which antidote is for which soldier. The commanding office of a soldier would have the appropriate individual's antidote recorded, as such their own army could apply the antidote.

I'm not sure if I understand the last paragraph. Mind clarifying what point to what argument you are trying to make?

Sheesh. It's like you guys like your own population or something.

I just think there are so many conditions to meet and other possibilities on the list before you get down to relying on the principle of MAD - which I think should be a last resort scenario - that, in this case at least, it would never really get that far. If your nation is incapable of offensively doing damage to their non-member opponent in retaliation in even one way which they can't return, or is unable to use preventative, defensive measures to avoid such damage, surely they're probably incapable of retaliating to strikes on medical facilities with the same anyway?

Praetor:

If there are other ways of retaliation which the non-member nation does not additionally have, you are welcome to list them.

Click to expand...

I mean, it would be pretty specific to the nations in question. If there's some resource the non-member nation relies heavily on, destroying supplies of that, or preventing them access to that, would be very damaging. But that was just a random example.

Also, I still don't think that ingestible solution scenario is really workable. There would have to be a whole lot of bureaucracy and organisation which would be very difficult to maintain in a war environment.

Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make there was that the proposal would not prevent a member nation's soldiers taking a wounded soldier prisoner-of-war even in the patient's nation's medical facility. It does not prevent them using force, as long as they are not violent, to take the patient prisoner.

For.

Might elaborate later if I have time.

I don't believe there is anything to support the first scenario.

A tremendous amount of scientific and organizational progress gets made during war. I think the bureaucracy would quite easily be able to keep up from the informational aspect.

Seems to defeat the purpose of the resolution if an enemy combatant is taken prisoner only to die in your care as you are unable to provide adequate medical treatment...

Praetor:

Seems to defeat the purpose of the resolution if an enemy combatant is taken prisoner only to die in your care as you are unable to provide adequate medical treatment...

Click to expand...

No, the proposal wouldn't let you do that (under 3.b.) - but you can still take the patient as a prisoner of war when their life is not in danger anymore.

Maowi:

No, the proposal wouldn't let you do that (under 3.b.) - but you can still take the patient as a prisoner of war when their life is not in danger anymore.

Click to expand...

Which in that case, under the scenario mentioned before, the enemy would be unable to hold your soldiers prisoner.

Sorry, not sure what point you're making there? Are the "your soldiers" you refer to the ones taking a patient prisoner of war?

Against

Maowi:

Sorry, not sure what point you're making there? Are the "your soldiers" you refer to the ones taking a patient prisoner of war?

Click to expand...

Yes. However, they would be unable to adequately treat the soldiers and as such, would not be able to hold onto them and must release them for proper medical treatment.

Praetor:

Yes. However, they would be unable to adequately treat the soldiers and as such, would not be able to hold onto them and must release them for proper medical treatment.

Click to expand...

I see - but my point is that after they have received the necessary emergency treatment in the medical facility, and their life is not in danger any more, they can be taken as prisoners of war.

Maowi:

I see - but my point is that after they have received the necessary emergency treatment in the medical facility, and their life is not in danger any more, they can be taken as prisoners of war.

Click to expand...

And if the facility is unable to provide the necessary emergency treatment?

Praetor:

And if the facility is unable to provide the necessary emergency treatment?

Click to expand...

Then ... they die? I feel like I've still misunderstood you?

For and voting For in game

Maowi:

Then ... they die? I feel like I've still misunderstood you?

Click to expand...

That that shouldn't happen...

~*~FOR~*~

For

Praetor:

That that shouldn't happen...

Click to expand...

If neither of the nations concerned has medical facilities in the proximity which can provide adequate medical treatment, I don't really see what can be done about it?

For

Maowi:

If neither of the nations concerned has medical facilities in the proximity which can provide adequate medical treatment, I don't really see what can be done about it?

Click to expand...

In the situation mentioned, the nation that the soldier belongs to would have the appropriate medical equipment.

For

For.

Praetor:

In the situation mentioned, the nation that the soldier belongs to would have the appropriate medical equipment.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I was talking about before. The member nation can take that soldier prisoner of war but allow them to be cured in their own medical facility, making sure they don't escape - and then take them away after they're able to survive away from their own medical facility.

For

For. It's important to have healthcare during wartimes because back in the days during war, everyone kept dying cuz of the wars!