[GA - Withdrawn] Convention Against Military Aggression

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Convention Against Military Aggression
Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Ice States | Onsite Topic​

Whereas member nations, having united with each other to form this august institution, should work in harmony together to improve the world;

Whereas the World Assembly should use its influence to protect the security of member nations, allowing them to more efficiently spend their finite resources and collaborate to improve the world without having to cope with the threat of armed attack from other member nations; and

Whereas this body's recent repeal of "Rights and Duties of WA States" has opened the doors to greater opportunities to promote peace between the nations of this grand bureaucracy;

Be it resolutely enacted as follows.



  1. Acts of war. For the purposes of this resolution, an act of war against a nation shall mean any act involving the wilful use of armed force to prevent that nation from exercising full sovereignty over its jurisdiction. The act of wilfully assisting an act of war against a nation shall itself be considered an act of war against that nation.

  2. Sovereignty. No member nation may engage in any act of war against another member nation, subject only to Section 3. The World Assembly shall consider any violation of this Section to be a heinous crime, and a crime against peace.

  3. Exceptions.Regardless of this resolution's other mandates, the following exceptions shall apply to Section 2.
    1. Section 2 shall not prohibit armed action which (i) is taken by a member nation to retaliate against an act of war against that nation, targeting only those nations responsible for said act of war; and (ii) does not interrupt any period of the de facto absence of armed conflict. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit the provision of assistance to such action.

    2. Humanitarian intervention, which is determined by the World Assembly Commission on Human Rights to be essential for the halting of a widespread, ongoing act explicitly or implicitly classified by World Assembly law as a crime against humanity; and is performed in the most limited manner necessary to halt said act; shall not be prohibited by Section 2.

  4. Dispute arbitration. The Wartime Service for Arbitration (WSA) is a subcommittee of the International Mediation Foundation, and shall arbitrate disputes vis-à-vis acts of war upon consent from all involved parties. Such arbitration is to occur on internationally neutral territory, and shall have the goal of ending, preventing, or preventing escalation of armed conflict. Further, said arbitration shall be binding if all involved parties have agreed to be legally bound by the arbitration award.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
5701
 
Last edited:
(Non-WA) I am for this. The proposal semi-replaces GA #2, but it goes far further than GA #2 ever did in protecting the sovereignty of member-nations from military threats. It is admittedly broad, but I think that the generality of it avoids being one-size-fits-none, allowing for some roleplay within the confines of the proposal. Arbitration of disputes by a committee is an idea of the proposal that I like a lot.
 
For.
I have previously posted about the virtues of reproducing the effects of 'the democratic peace', a concept in political science, where democracies empirically almost never go to war against each other. This saves democracies globally an enormous amount of resources, which can be used for other things. This would not directly replicate the causes, but the results, of that phenomenon.
This would give WA members a clear edge against non-member states, and would be a clear enticement to join.
A primer on democratic peace theory can be found here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/democratic-peace
 
How would this work if say you have an alliance which is binding on you and the third party, then your third party commits an act of war ?. By the terms of this resolution you cannot assist in anyway otherwise you are also guilty. However if you do not assist the third party you would breach the alliance.
 
Elfnotonashelf:
How would this work if say you have an alliance which is binding on you and the third party, then your third party commits an act of war ?. By the terms of this resolution you cannot assist in anyway otherwise you are also guilty. However if you do not assist the third party you would breach the alliance.
Click to expand...
This only prohibits acts of war where committed as aggression, with the Section 3 exceptions. However, otherwise member nations must comply with this resolution regardless of any treaties; just like having signed a treaty with a non-member nation agreeing to ban abortion is not a defense against violation of GA #499, or any other resolution.
 
Last edited:
Lord Dominator:
Agains, given the lack of coverage for mutual-defense treaties apparently
Click to expand...
There is nothing stopping a member nation for fulfilling its treaty obligations to help defend an ally (Nb a member nation defending itself or an ally is definitionally not an "act of war"); all that is restricted as to "mutual-defense treaties" is a member nation directly attacking another member nation for attacking its ally. See also the previous voting thread.
 
Last edited:
The WA should not be in the business of formally sanctioning acts of war for any reason.
 
Comfed:
The WA should not be in the business of formally sanctioning acts of war for any reason.
Click to expand...
No acts of war are "formally sanctioned". The exceptions in Section 3 only "apply to Section 2", and they can be restricted or prohibited by the World Assembly at any time in the future; such that the proposal takes a neutral stance as to acts exempted.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
No acts of war are "formally sanctioned". The exceptions in Section 3 only "apply to Section 2", and they can be restricted or prohibited by the World Assembly at any time in the future; such that the proposal takes a neutral stance as to acts exempted.
Click to expand...
The World Assembly Commission on Human Rights is given a mandate by this resolution to determine military action to be "essential".
 
Comfed:
The World Assembly Commission on Human Rights is given a mandate by this resolution to determine military action to be "essential".
Click to expand...
Yes. It gets to determine whether it is necessary to halt a crime against humanity; that doesn't necessarily make it impossible to prohibit under future resolutions.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Yes. It gets to determine whether it is necessary to halt a crime against humanity; that doesn't necessarily make it impossible to prohibit under future resolutions.
Click to expand...
That's not my point. I'm saying that the WA shouldn't be in the business of determining whether any acts of war are "essential" or whatever. Sure, you can talk about hypothetical future resolutions but we're talking about the effect of this one.
 
Comfed:
That's not my point. I'm saying that the WA shouldn't be in the business of determining whether any acts of war are "essential" or whatever. Sure, you can talk about hypothetical future resolutions but we're talking about the effect of this one.
Click to expand...
The alternatives would be either to prohibit humanitarian interventions, which would likely lose more votes than leaving it up to a second resolution; or leave it up to a member nation to determine when it is "essential", which would result in member nations just claiming that whatever war they want to wage is a "humanitarian intervention", making the resolution toothless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top