[Discussion - GA - Passed] Defense of Critical Services

[Cretox]

Defense of Critical Services
Pre-Submission Proposal Discussion
Category: International Security | Strength: Significant
Author: Separatist Peoples | Onsite Topic​

---

Noting the devastation military conflict causes,

Pleased with the protections already granted to civilians in conflict zones, yet,

Concerned that the indirect effects of war pose a serious risk to innocent populations,

Observing that the difference between continued crumbling of a war-torn area and eventual stability often rests on the restoration of infrastructure critical to civilian survival,

Believing that territories that do not stabilize often fall to violence, disease, turmoil, and insurgency to the detriment of the World Assembly’s aim for peace and economic benefit,

The World Assembly enacts the following:

1. "Critical services" are all infrastructure, systems, or devices whose failure or disruption will endanger civilians, which include, but are not limited to, potable water access, sanitation facilities, crops and livestock, food supplies, public health and emergency response activities, transportation routes, and power generation and transmission;
   
   
2. Member states may not deliberately target or negligently destroy critical services of a belligerent nation during armed conflict when those services:
   1. are indispensable for civilian health and safety, or
      
      
   2. are exclusively used by civilians,
3. except where those services are restored in a timely manner by the attacking nation so as to render their denial a mere inconvenience and not a credible risk to health and safety.
   
   
4. Member states must refrain from targeting or impacting critical services when there is not an insurmountable and immediate military necessity to do so;
   
   
5. No belligerent member states may target infrastructure, with the sole exception of the mobile power facilities of military vessels, that contains dangerous forces or substances, such as dams or nuclear power plants, if such an attack will cause an uncontrolled release of the mechanism of danger;
   
   
6. Member states that accidentally or negligently destroy the aforementioned infrastructure must take immediate steps to reduce further civilian casualties and contain dangerous forces or substances, as per international law.
   
   
7. Member states who's belligerents accidentally or negligently destroy the aforementioned infrastructure may not harry, disrupt, or attack those belligerent forces taking immediate steps to reduce civilian casualties and contain those dangerous forces or substances, per this resolution, except that member states may suspend their obligation under this section if the belligerent's destruction of infrastructure containing dangerous forces or substances perfidiously take military advantage of this protection.
   
   
8. Requires member states to consider actions or conspiracy to act in contravention of the above requirements illegal war crimes, and prosecute offenders accordingly, and, where a guilty verdict is rendered, punish the offender sufficiently to deter future wrongful acts by other potential offenders.

Note: This is an internal discussion on a [Last Call] or equivalent draft proposal currently on the NS forums, in order to establish an internal opinion prior to submission. Detailed opinions are appreciated and encouraged! Voting will take place in the attached poll. Should the proposal be altered, its text in this thread will be a modified and an appropriate notice will be posted.

---

Internal Voting Instructions:

• Vote Support if you personally support this proposal in its current form.
• Vote Oppose if you personally oppose this proposal in its current form.
• Vote Neither if you neither support nor oppose this proposal in its current form.

 

[Cretox]

Submission Timeframe

---

The author plans to submit this proposal "after PRiW is at vote and not in need of a campaign, one way or another."

 

[saintpeter]

Clause 7 is a bit iffy. Why should a nation be required to allow a hostile army in at all? I appreciate that members may suspend this cease-fire when the hostile army abuses it, but this can be too late, especially if the hostile army has already taken / destroyed / etc. a foreign strategic goal.

 

[Cretox]

"Critical services" are all infrastructure, systems, or devices whose failure or disruption will endanger civilians, which include, but are not limited to, potable water access, sanitation facilities, crops and livestock, food supplies, public health and emergency response activities, transportation routes, and power generation and transmission

Member states may not deliberately target or negligently destroy critical services of a belligerent nation during armed conflict when those services... are exclusively used by civilians

except where those services are restored in a timely manner by the attacking nation so as to render their denial a mere inconvenience and not a credible risk to health and safety

I think the proposal's approach to defining critical services and handling mandates regarding critical services is reasonable.

7. Member states who's belligerents accidentally or negligently destroy the aforementioned infrastructure may not harry, disrupt, or attack those belligerent forces taking immediate steps to reduce civilian casualties and contain those dangerous forces or substances, per this resolution, except that member states may suspend their obligation under this section if the belligerent's destruction of infrastructure containing dangerous forces or substances perfidiously take military advantage of this protection.

What's a "belligerent force"? If the Cretox State Army is taking "immediate action" somewhere to fix broken toilets, does that mean they can't be attacked elsewhere? I think the resolution doesn't apply like this, but I'm unsure.

 

[Tinfect]

Clause 7 is a bit iffy. Why should a nation be required to allow a hostile army in at all? I appreciate that members may suspend this cease-fire when the hostile army abuses it, but this can be too late, especially if the hostile army has already taken / destroyed / etc. a foreign strategic goal.

There's nothing about 'letting in' hostile forces, the clause appears to be targeted towards forces already in position; IE, A nuclear reactor goes up when your missile hits it, and the enemy moves to mitigate meltdown contamination; you aren't allowed to target the people mitigating the disaster caused by your illegal negligence. Separatist Peoples' proposals along these lines have always taken a similar approach to this; breaking the rules of war carries consequences that, in the name of basic humanity, will prevent some military action that would dramatically harm humanitarian causes.

The clause regarding defense against use of such disasters for military advantage says nothing about preventing your forces from intercepting missiles or something simply on the grounds that they haven't impacted yet; your scenario isn't really a concern.

What's a "belligerent force"? If the Cretox State Army is taking "immediate action" somewhere to fix broken toilets, does that mean they can't be attacked elsewhere? I think the resolution doesn't apply like this, but I'm unsure.

Belligerent Force is not a term that strictly requires definition. The draft could technically be interpreted that way, but it would be ludicrous to do so. The draft can be easily interpreted to narrowly protect only those forces actively engaged in disaster mitigation due to illegal negligence.

 

[saintpeter]

There's nothing about 'letting in' hostile forces, the clause appears to be targeted towards forces already in position; IE, A nuclear reactor goes up when your missile hits it, and the enemy moves to mitigate meltdown contamination; you aren't allowed to target the people mitigating the disaster caused by your illegal negligence. Separatist Peoples' proposals along these lines have always taken a similar approach to this; breaking the rules of war carries consequences that, in the name of basic humanity, will prevent some military action that would dramatically harm humanitarian causes.

The clause regarding defense against use of such disasters for military advantage says nothing about preventing your forces from intercepting missiles or something simply on the grounds that they haven't impacted yet; your scenario isn't really a concern.

It isn't about whether they should let them in as much that this can force a nation to allow a hostile army to operate. Sure, only as long as they appear to reduce civilian harm, but the problem is that such can change quite quickly, and if tactically abused, can be a major set-back for a nation being invaded.