[GA, Withdrawn] - Demilitarised Zones Act

Status
Not open for further replies.

Simone

Milky white thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Demilitarised Zones Act
Category: International Security | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Ice States | Onsite Topic


Noting the effectiveness of demilitarised zones in preventing international conflict from arising or continuing, and further noting the promotion of international peace to be an important goal of this august body;

Believing that an option for impartial, depoliticised enforcement of demilitarised zones would allow member nations to form demilitarised zones while being assured that they will be respected by both sides without having to resort to militarism and aggression themselves; and thus

Desiring to create this option;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.
  1. Demilitarised zones: Any two or more member nations (hereinafter "signatories"), whether or not currently or previously engaging in armed conflict, may designate a "demilitarised zone" which they agree not to occupy, station military forces in, or otherwise use to conduct military efforts against each other.

  2. Violations: The use of a demilitarised zone by a signatory to conduct military efforts against another signatory shall be considered an unlawful war crime, and where proven shall implicitly terminate the existence of that demilitarised zone unless renewed by the signatories or the violation is de minimis. The presence or activity of civilian law enforcement within a demilitarised zone shall not, ipso facto, be considered unlawful under this Section.

  3. Enforcement: The International Peacekeeping Force (hereinafter IPF) is formed as a subcommittee of the International Enforcement Commission. Signatories may, by mutual agreement, request the presence of IPF personnel within a demilitarised zone. IPF personnel so deployed may, where consented to by the signatories, conduct the tasks of (i) preventing military access to the zone, where such access would violate the terms of that demilitarised zone; (ii) ensuring the evacuation of military personnel and supplies within the zone where their presence would violate the terms of that demilitarised zone; and (iii) conducting routine inspections of the zone so as to monitor compliance with the terms of that zone.
    1. After conducting any Section 3iii inspection, the IPF shall publish a report describing its findings in that inspection, with appropriate redactions for personal privacy and national security. Such reports shall be promptly deposited with the Universal Library Coalition.

    2. Any signatory may revoke consent to IPF presence in a demilitarised zone, following a good faith consultation on the revocation of this consent with any other signatories to the relevant demilitarised zone.

  4. Protections: The World Assembly guarantees that IPF personnel acting under Section 3 shall never use military force against any civilian, engage in armed hostility towards a member nation, commit any act which would be a war crime were it conducted by individual member nations, or otherwise violate prior and standing World Assembly law. Nor shall the IPF initiate or continue any Section 3 mission where the consent of a signatory to the relevant demilitarised zone has not been obtained or is otherwise no longer present. IPF personnel must, at all times when on-duty, wear military-grade helmets of a standardised light blue colour and clearly labelled as belonging to the IPF. No part of this resolution authorises the World Assembly to unilaterally declare a demilitarised zone within member nation, non-member, or international territory.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in 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
0000
 
Hard against. Clause 3 amounts to (as I pointed out numerous times) sending gnomes/your kids/whatever out as cannon fodder over foreign wars that are both a waste of lives and WA money (which, after all, is OUR money), since the IEC is still funded by the General Fund under GA#17 clause 2.

NSGA is not NATO.
 
Last edited:
Hard against. Clause 3 amounts to (as I pointed out numerous times) sending gnomes/your kids/whatever out as cannon fodder over foreign wars that are both a waste of lives and WA money (which, after all, is OUR money), since the IEC is still funded by the General Fund under GA#17 clause 2.
What is an acceptable use of WA money if not helping prevent wars? Arguably this should be one of the highest priorities of the WA -- preventing death and international conflict.

Against because who is going to give their military power under 3?
Lots of real-world DMZs have third-party peacekeeping missions; eg the Moldova-Ukraine border DMZ is administered by the Joint Control Commission; the Egypt-Israel one is administered by the MFO, as prescriped in the peace treaty. In that case, I don't see why the WA wouldn't also receive the relevant permission to intervene.

With that said, For (non-WA), and I encourage others to also vote for.
 
Last edited:
Against

Serious flaws have been pointed out above, and I'd remain generally opposed to this kind of intervention by the WA (even with consent—yes, I've read the resolution) as a matter of national policy only.
 
Last edited:
What is an acceptable use of WA money if not helping prevent wars? Arguably this should be one of the highest priorities of the WA -- preventing death and international conflict.


Lots of real-world DMZs have third-party peacekeeping missions; eg the Moldova-Ukraine border DMZ is administered by the Joint Control Commission; the Egypt-Israel one is administered by the MFO, as prescriped in the peace treaty. In that case, I don't see why the WA wouldn't also receive the relevant permission to intervene.

With that said, For (non-WA), and I encourage others to also vote for.

No. Our lives and our treasures are not be used to fund hopeless cannon fodder missions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top