[GA - Passed] Repeal "Military Freedom Act"

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

Repeal "Military Freedom Act"
Category: Repeal | GA #132
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Protecting Military Conscientious Objectors​

The World Assembly,

Praising the ostensible goal of the resolution to protect conscientious objectors from being subject to forced military service, and accordingly noting that a replacement has already been fully drafted as to protect this goal upon repeal of the target, yet

Saddened that the resolution's definition of a "war of aggression" requires that said war be "initiated by the conscientious objector's nation", thus allowing member nations to force conscientious objectors to serve in combative roles to assist unjust wars of aggression by other nations,

Further noting that Article III, Section 4 also creates a major loophole, as it authorises member nations to force objectors to continue to serve in combative military duties for the rest of the original terms which they were assigned to serve for, so long as this is less than six months, which is plainly counterproductive to the protection of conscientious objectors,

Finding that coercing conscientious objectors to serve in military duties, even if for a limited period of time, is rarely helpful to a nation's military goals, as it would weaken the general morale of its armed forces and thereby hinder military goals, and

Believing that, as resolutions cannot be amended, the only way to address these problems is by repealing and replacing the target,

Repeals the "Military Freedom Act".
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
16000
 
Last edited:
Overview
This proposal repeals GA#132, "Military Freedom Act", citing two major issues with the definitions, namely (1) that the resolution's definition of a "war of aggression" requires that said war be "initiated by the conscientious objector's nation", thus allowing member nations to force conscientious objectors to serve in combative roles to assist unjust wars of aggression by other nations and that (2) it authorises member nations to force objectors to continue to serve in combative military duties for up to six months under certain circumstances, noting that it is neither beneficial to the objector nor to the morale of the combat forces.

Recommendation
We believe the issues raised by the author of the repeal proposal are glaring enough that it necessitates a repeal, and the underlying issue of military conscientious objections is a matter of sufficient importance to warrant the attention of the World Assembly. There are a number of proposals vying as potential replacements for this resolution and the MoWAA will comment on those proposals in due course.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, “Repeal "Military Freedom Act"”.
 
Last edited:
For, obviously. To elaborate on the first argument (since there appears to have been some confusion as to it in the forum thread), the argument there is that wars of aggression by third parties do not count as "wars of aggression". As a result, in for example the real-world Russian invasion of Ukraine, if Belarus conscripted conscientious objectors to support Russia's invasion, it would not be considered a "war of aggression" and therefore be permitted as it was not "initiated by" Belarus.
 
Last edited:
I already commented on the gameside forum and don't have much further to add.

I do agree with the statement though that "coercing conscientious objectors to serve in military duties, even if for a limited period of time, is rarely helpful to a nation's military goals" - hard to legislate against cowardice.

I am philosophically uncomfortable with the idea of giving objectors carte blanche the right not to fight, even though I agree that they are probably not going to be brave or courageous fighters anyway.
 
Last edited:
Direct quote from gameside.

Starman of Stardust";p="40323679:
Simone Republic";p="40323608:
To quote Heidgaudr on the other thread:

What happens if the objector's town has been blown to pieces, all his family members raped, tortured and killed, and the objector's neighbours are fighting invaders with machine guns? Is it acceptable for the objector to sit at home and play Candy Crush Saga?
Click to expand...
While my answer would be "yes", even though I dislike the framing of your question, this isn't really relevant to the repeal, whose arguments are unrelated to the conscription of objectors to self-defense. I have, however, edited the repeal text to make this even more explicit in the first argument.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned on the repeal thread, I am philosophically uncomfortable with the idea of giving objectors carte blanche the right not to fight, even though I agree that they are probably not going to be brave or courageous fighters anyway (as I think Tinfect pointed out on that other thread.)
 
Last edited:
(Non-WA) I am for this proposal. Though I disagree with a complete ban on conscription, for reasons of personal philosophy and politics, I find that there are enough arguments in the repeal to justify a replacement in any case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top