[GA - Withdrawn] Right to Conscientious Objection

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

Right to Conscientious Objection
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​

Recognising that those in militaries can develop objections to conflict both before and during their service, and thus

Seeking to give everybody serving in any member's military, whether in a combat or non-combat role, the tools they need to show they cannot in good conscience partake in conflict...

The General Assembly enacts as follows.

  1. Definitions:For the purposes of this resolution:
    1. a "military" means a military, or any branch thereof, in a member state,
    2. "military conflict," in relation to any given military, can mean either conflict as a general concept or a particular conflict which that military is actively engaging in,
    3. a "conscientious objector" is a person who currently serves in, or will imminently serve in, a military, but whose religious or philosophical beliefs are incompatible with participation in military conflict,
    4. a "petition" is a statement authored by a conscientious objector explaining how their religious or philosophical beliefs are incompatible with participation in military conflict,
    5. an "authority" is a civilian institution which reviews and makes decisions on petitions,
    6. a "successful petitioner" is a petition author whose petition has been accepted,
    7. an "unsuccessful petitioner" is a petition author whose petition has been denied, and
    8. a "conscript" is a person who currently serves in, or will imminently serve in, a military because they are legally required to do so.
  2. Right to conscientious objection: Any conscientious objector may author and submit a petition to their national authority for consideration. No conscientious objector may be punished for authoring or submitting a petition, becoming a successful or unsuccessful petitioner, or holding the beliefs that make them a conscientious objector. Nor may any charges on the petitioning process be imposed.
  3. Authorities: Every member state must designate an authority. It must consider every petition in good faith, accept or deny each petition and inform each petition author about whether their petition has been accepted or denied as swiftly as possible.
  4. Verification of petitions: Authorities may, at their discretion, require that petitions and the claims made in them be verified before they can be accepted. Should they do so, authorities must at least sincerely endeavour to confirm that the petition author actually holds the beliefs they claimed to hold in their petition.
  5. Denial of petitions:Authorities:
    1. may deny petitions made in bad faith,
    2. may only deny any other petition where the petition author's presence in the military is absolutely necessary to protect against an imminent or ongoing armed attack on their member state by another entity, and
    3. must never deny a petition solely due to any non-petition-related factor associated with its author, such as whether they have a criminal record or hold a civilian firearm permit.
  6. Successful petitioners who are conscripts:Where a successful petitioner is a conscript, their military must (at its discretion and subject to Article h) immediately either:
    1. reassign them to non-violent civilian service which they are not objectively unqualified to carry out; this service must be as long as the duration of the military service they would have otherwise been expected to embark upon, or
    2. non-punitively discharge them (although militaries must inform conscripts so discharged about the non-violent civilian service opportunities available to them).
  7. Successful petitioners who are non-conscripts: Where a successful petitioner is not a conscript, they must be immediately and non-punitively discharged from the military, subject to Article h. However, militaries must inform such non-conscripts about the non-violent civilian service opportunities available to them.
  8. Specific conscientious objection: A successful petitioner who only objects to a particular conflict may be immediately reassigned to military service on an unrelated conflict. However, this Article does not prevent militaries from applying Article f or g as appropriate to that petitioner.
  9. Unsuccessful petitioners: Unsuccessful petitioners can be required to continue their military service to its expected conclusion while they remain unsuccessful petitioners.
  10. Appeals: All unsuccessful petitioners must be allowed to appeal their authority's denial of their petition to a civilian court. Where that court accepts their appeal, they shall become a successful petitioner and treated accordingly.
  11. Education: Everybody who serves in a military while this resolution is active must be informed about all of its provisions by their military at the first possible opportunity, which shall include information about how to submit a petition to their authority.
  12. Clarification: This resolution does not affect the legality of conscription in any member.
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
0305
 
Last edited:
Present. This seems fine, though I don't get why this requires such a bureaucratic approach to the topic. Just wording such as "No member nation may require someone to serve in an armed conflict if they express a bona fide conscientious objection to serving in the same" would do what this proposal does in twelve clauses.
 
Last edited:
Against. Why are militaries allowed to conscript conscientious objectors when they are being invaded? That doesn't make any sense.
 
I will be present, with the caveat that I will switch to for or against when I make up my mind.
 
Present.
Although I agree with most of the points in the proposal, I have a few small nitpicks.

The military is required to inform every successful petitioner about the non-violent civilian service opportunities available. To what level of depth must the petitioner be informed?
What if the government already supplies information about jobs?
There are so many other ways a person can find a job, yet in this scenario with a successful petitioner, you are forcing the military to do it.

My second nitpick is that this proposal does attempt to deal with lies, but if the petition is accepted under false pretences, and then is later rejected under the discovery of the falsehood, can that person then be punished, or are they classed as an unsuccessful petitioner, and then cannot be punished for their petition?

My third nitpick is that, say a person becomes a unsuccessful petitioner, and then begins to disobey orders given to them under the basis that they are "unable to comply with.orders that violates their beliefs", what happens if they are punished for disobedience.
Could the petitioner claim to a civilian court that they were punished under the basis that they are a conscientious objector?
Could they then force that civilian court to repeal the petition denial under the pretence that they "are not safe in the military", and also result in the discharge of the person who "punished them for being a conscientious objector"?
 
Nutmeg The Squirrel:
Present.
Although I agree with most of the points in the proposal, I have a few small nitpicks.

The military is required to inform every successful petitioner about the non-violent civilian service opportunities available. To what level of depth must the petitioner be informed?
Click to expand...
NatSov.

Nutmeg The Squirrel:
What if the government already supplies information about jobs?
There are so many other ways a person can find a job, yet in this scenario with a successful petitioner, you are forcing the military to do it.
Click to expand...
This information may not be targetted to those leaving the military.

Nutmeg The Squirrel:
My second nitpick is that this proposal does attempt to deal with lies, but if the petition is accepted under false pretences, and then is later rejected under the discovery of the falsehood, can that person then be punished, or are they classed as an unsuccessful petitioner, and then cannot be punished for their petition?
Click to expand...
Bad-faith petitions may be denied, ideally at the first opportunity possible.

Nutmeg The Squirrel:
My third nitpick is that, say a person becomes a unsuccessful petitioner, and then begins to disobey orders given to them under the basis that they are "unable to comply with.orders that violates their beliefs", what happens if they are punished for disobedience.
Could the petitioner claim to a civilian court that they were punished under the basis that they are a conscientious objector?
Could they then force that civilian court to repeal the petition denial under the pretence that they "are not safe in the military", and also result in the discharge of the person who "punished them for being a conscientious objector"?
Click to expand...
Defiance of orders has always been a good reason to expel people (conscientious objectors or not) from the military - dishonourably, I may add.
 
Comfed:
Against. Why are militaries allowed to conscript conscientious objectors when they are being invaded? That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

I am on the other side (as mentioned several times on the gameside forum) in that I consider anyone who doesn't pick up arms (if fit and if asked) to be an act of cowardice. But I also don't disagree with the point about unwilling fighters being bad soldiers.
 
Last edited:
Simone_Republic:
I am on the other side (as mentioned several times on the gameside forum) in that I consider anyone who doesn't pick up arms (if fit and if asked) to be an act of cowardice. But I also don't disagree with the point about unwilling fighters being bad soldiers.
Click to expand...
How is it an "act of cowardice" to be morally against killing people in war? If anything, risking your own life to disobey a draft is an act of bravery, and certainly not "cowardice".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top