The Axioms of War

[iamthey]

On behalf of all the signatories of the convention we hereby present the following doctrine establishing boundaries for acceptable practices in war. Those who did not attend but would like to sign anyway, may do so at this time or at some point in the future.

In the interest of establishing acceptable practices in warfare the following shall be the standards to which we hold ourselves in any and all conflict, and the standard to which we will hold our enemies. Assuming victory, violations committed unto us by any nation or people, or by us unto any nation or people may be considered a war crime.

Article I: Definitions

Civilian Entity: Any structure, facility, or person which does not contribute to or effect the ability of the enemy nation to conduct a policy of war. (Example: School)

Facilitating Entity: Any structure, person, or facility which facilitates the war effort. (Example: Factory)

Military Entity: Any structure, facility or person which directly carries out an enemy nation's policy of war. (Example: Military Base)

Lawful Combatant: An individual who is a recognized member of a enemy nation's armed forces, and which operates under a distinguishable uniform bearing the markings of that nation's military.

Unlawful Combatant: An individual who who is not a recognized member of an enemy nation's armed forces, and which is not operating under a distinguishable uniform. Any combatant who is attempting to conceal their national identity. (Example: Spy, Terrorist, Unsanctioned militia, guerrilla forces).

Surrendered Unit: A former Military entity which is attempting to surrender to an enemy force be it voluntarily or under coercion.

Unrecognized Prisoner: Any unlawful combatant which has surrendered and has not been recognized as a prisoner of war.

Prisoner of War: Any lawful combatant which has surrendered and has had this state recognized by the enemy force.

Upper Government: Any organ that is part of the decision making process responsible for the execution of the war is classified as Military Entities (Example: Parliament).

Lower Government: Any organ of government aiding in the execution of the war shall be labeled as Facilitating Entity (Example: Civil Service).

Democratic Nation: A nation where the "people" form the sovereign base of the government, and are therefore responsible for the actions of the government.

Authoritarian Nation: A nation where the "state" and the "people" are separated and where control of a nation is determined by instruments of coercion thereby exonerating the people of responsability for their government.

Torture: Any method of interrogation which physically harms the body of the interrogated individual, and is designed to produce pain or suffering. (Example: Cutting, Electroshock, Burning)

Biological Warfare: The use of pathogens, and living micro-organisms as weapons in war.

Strategic: In a large scale often effecting civilian, and facilitating entities in addition to military entities. (Example: Large scale nuclear weapon.)

Tactical: Smaller scale limited to single battles, generally only effecting military entities. (Example: Tactical nuclear weapon)

Article II: Axioms of War

1. War should only be used defensively to safeguard against violations of a nation's sovereignty, or threats to the safety and welfare of a nation's people. War is pre-emptively justified when the presupposed threat has demonstrated an intent to violate said nation's sovereignty or the harm the safety and welfare of said nation's people and when engaging in a pre-emptive war would lessen the severity and shorten the inevitable defensive war.

2. In a time of war the targeting of facilitating and military entities is acceptable as their state of existence has a direct effect on the ability of the enemy nation to conduct war. Conversely the targeting of civilian entities is unacceptable as they have no bearing on the war itself. The elimination of a civilian entity is only acceptable when doing so is necessary and balanced by the targeting of facilitating or military entities. Attacks, if possible should be conducted, and timed in such a way as to minimize the damage done to civilian entities.

3. Occupied population centers and territories should be administrated by occupying forces fairly and with minimal intervention in the lives of those living within them. Civilian entities under the control of occupying forces should not be ill treated or abused unless such treatment is necessitated by criminal activity (Exampled: Detainment of Criminals).

4. In a time of war, prisoner of war status should always be extended to surrendered units who were lawful combatants at the time of surrender. Upon said status being conferred the prisoner of war should be detained in sanitary facilities and cared for in a humane way by the host nation until the conclusion of the war or a prisoner exchange. Prisoners of war must not be subjected to ill treatment, execution, or torture. Lawful combatants who surrender in an injured state, or incur injury as a prisoner of war are due quality medical treatment by the host nation. If a surrendered unit is an unlawful combatant at the time of surrender, then they may be considered an unrecognized prisoner by the host nation. Unrecognized prisoners are not protected by this doctrine.

5. Biological warfare is unacceptable and the use of biological weapons, development, storage, trafficking, or sale of them is strictly forbidden. Chemical, and Nuclear weapons are tolerable weapons of mass destruction, and may be developed and maintained for use in war.

6. Nuclear weapons will never be used strategically in a first strike capacity. Tactical use is not prohibited, but is discouraged and should only be used when all other possible alternatives have been exhausted.

7. Economic reparations and sanctions should never be demanded of a defending nation nor should they be demanded of an aggressive Authoritarian Nation as they punish the citizens or subjects of that nation for actions they are not responsible for. Reparations or sanctions may be levied against aggressive democratic nations as their people bare responsability for their government's actions. Citizens belonging to authoritarian nations should also be treated with greater leniency and consideration for the before mentioned reason.

8. Unless there is a cultural, or strategic reason, territory gained during war war should not be absorbed into the occupying nation but should be either given to a successor state, or maintained as an autonomous protectorate.

Article III: Violations

Post war a special commission will be called to investigate war crimes, a tribunal of officials representing the signatories will then be set up to decide punishment. As the nature of an offense may be diverse there is no set punishment. Depending on the nature of the offense anything from simple removal, to execution may be issued.

Article IV: Signatures

For the Dominion:

Thomas Devereaux:

Imperial Regent of the Dominion

For the Republic of Aiginor:

Kyle Lucas

President of Aiginor

Gabriel Bevan

Vice-President of Aiginor

For Arctica:

Thadon I

Thurokiir of Arctica

For The Nation of Selenarctos:

IKrolm, Benevolent Dictator for Life

Alejandro Tiempo, Security Division Second Director

For the Promised Land:

Westly Davies, Supreme General

For the Dragon Empire:

Anthony Davis

Office of the Triumvirate Adviser

For the Republic of Euzkadi:

President Jose Aizpurua

Karla Arzalluz, Minister of Foreign Affairs

For the People's Republic of China:

Premier Rorschach

Adam Brody, Communist Party President

For Zargathia:

HRH Queen Amyante Tojimaru

Transitionary government of Zargathia

For the United Rpeublic of Ardoria:

President Nathan Briar

Foreign Minister Thomas Dale

For Drakoria:

Jason R. Drake, President

Henry J. Fredericks, Vice President

Second Senate of the Republic of Drakoria

Edited July 27, 2009 by iamthey

[Shadowsage]

We would like to clarify a few definitions, such as the Biological Warfare entry. As viruses are not living organisms, does their use qualify a violation of terms?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

"Yes, they do. They are organic proteins which attack cells."

[Shadowsage]

But they are not alive, just as fire is not alive.

[iamthey]

We would like to clarify a few definitions, such as the Biological Warfare entry. As viruses are not living organisms, does their use qualify a violation of terms?

"It says, "Biological Warfare: The use of pathogens, and living micro-organisms as weapons in war.",

"Pathogen: any disease-producing agent, esp. a virus, bacterium, or other microorganism."

While it also mentions living micro-organisms, viruses fall under the first subject, "Pathogens". The second specification (living micro-organism) was there to also encompass non conventional pathogens such as parasites, and protists.

We hope this specification answers the question to your satisfaction."

Edited July 25, 2009 by iamthey

[Shadowsage]

We see. Our definition of a Pathogen differs then, and we apologize for the miscommunication.

[iamthey]

Fair enough. While we can't really see how "pathogen" which has historically been used to describe a wide range of disease causing agents including small pox, influenza and plague would some how not apply to viruses which are clearly disease causing agents themselves; we respect your sovereignty and with it your right to assert alternative definitions.

[Shadowsage]

Pathogen in the Imperium is defined the same, with the exception of the "Living Agent" qualifier we have referenced. Obviously it is something we must take a look at.

[Raritan]

The United Republic will join its ally the Dominion in signing and ratifying these articles.

For the United Rpeublic of Ardoria:

President Nathan Briar

Foreign Minister Thomas Dale

Also, to resolve the biological warfare issue, perhaps changing the wording from "and living micro-organisms" to "or living micro-organisms." Thus, the use of either qualifies as biological warfare.

OOC: They, you spelt "autonomous" wrong in Article II Clause 8.

[iamthey]

The United Republic will join its ally the Dominion in signing and ratifying these articles.

For the United Rpeublic of Ardoria:

President Nathan Briar

Foreign Minister Thomas Dale

Also, to resolve the biological warfare issue, perhaps changing the wording from "and living micro-organisms" to "or living micro-organisms." Thus, the use of either qualifies as biological warfare.

OOC: They, you spelt "autonomous" wrong in Article II Clause 8.

We thank Ardoria for joining us in this pact. As for biological warfare, we don't think the arguments posed are much of an issue. All signatories involved agree that the use of viruses as weapons is indeed a form of biological warfare (the events involving influenza, a retro-virus, and allegations of biological warfare are the very subject that brought the convention to order), and that they are categorized as pathogens. While we too tend to be rather legalistic and technical in interpreting agreements, we think that technically viruses are considered under the doctrine. While there are fringe nitty picky interpretations which might say otherwise, the mainstream and moderate interpretation in this case should prevail. Moreover in a time of war it is the signatories of this doctrine which will be applying the rules, and holding defeated non-signatories and their peers to account. So as long as the group itself agrees that biological warfare, which is prohibited in the generate case, includes viruses, and is objectionable and a war crime then thats all that really matters.

OOC: Fixed.

Edited July 25, 2009 by iamthey

[Raritan]

OOC: My sig wasn't added. )):

[iamthey]

OOC: My sig wasn't added. )):

OOC:

*Ninja Edit*

Edited July 25, 2009 by iamthey

[Sargun II]

New Zealand will not sign any paper that could potentially restrict last-ditch attempts to save our own peoples. If it takes the worst horrors of war to save ourselves from the brink of destruction then by God we will unleash them.

[Centurius]

New Zealand will not sign any paper that could potentially restrict last-ditch attempts to save our own peoples. If it takes the worst horrors of war to save ourselves from the brink of destruction then by God we will unleash them.

We didn't expect to ever say this but we agree with New Zealand how terrible it may be when needed we will fire everything needed to survive

Edited July 25, 2009 by Centurius

[Manetheren]

The Tahoe Republic will not sign this treaty, nor will we allow any of our citizens to be punished under international law. However, Tahoe does have its own laws regarding civilized warfare that in some cases is not to different from these.

[JEDCJT]

The Tahoe Republic will not sign this treaty, nor will we allow any of our citizens to be punished under international law. However, Tahoe does have its own laws regarding civilized warfare that in some cases is not to different from these.

New England echoes the statement of its ally. We will not sign this treaty because we observe similiar laws regarding war that is not much different than the one put up here.

[Mergerberger II]

New Zealand will not sign any paper that could potentially restrict last-ditch attempts to save our own peoples. If it takes the worst horrors of war to save ourselves from the brink of destruction then by God we will unleash them.

So your existence as a government is more important to you than the lives of millions of unarmed civilians?

[Sargun II]

So your existence as a government is more important to you than the lives of millions of unarmed civilians?

What the hell are you on about?

[King Kevz]

Pax Pacis will not sign this treaty at this current time or at any time in the future, that is all.

[Mergerberger II]

What the hell are you on about?

You would kill millions of foreign citizens just so that your government may stay intact is what I'm on about. By the reasons you have given, you are permitting yourself to use these weapons on civilian targets. Therefore, what I am saying is that you would rather millions of innocent people die than have your government dismantled.

[Cody Seb]

There is the chance that New Zealand would fight another nation not bound by these terms. What then? As the rogue nation decimates civilian populations what should they turn to?

[Centurius]

You would kill millions of foreign citizens just so that your government may stay intact is what I'm on about. By the reasons you have given, you are permitting yourself to use these weapons on civilian targets. Therefore, what I am saying is that you would rather millions of innocent people die than have your government dismantled.

He never stated such a thing, the representative merely stated that to protect its own citizenry it will attack the enemy with all means neccesary.

[Sargun II]

You would kill millions of foreign citizens just so that your government may stay intact is what I'm on about. By the reasons you have given, you are permitting yourself to use these weapons on civilian targets. Therefore, what I am saying is that you would rather millions of innocent people die than have your government dismantled.

Perhaps you should read our statement again. In order to save our own peoples, as in the citizens of New Zealand, we will not restrict ourselves to "honorable" tactics if our opponent will not do the same. There are many signees of this document, but there are many more who did not sign. On top of that, nations have shown time and time again that they are not bound by pieces of paper. In order for this to have any effect, you would have to violate the sovereignty of anybody who disagrees with what you call rules of war.

"Democratic Nation: A nation where the "people" form the sovereign base of the government, and are therefore responsible for the actions of the government."

If a democratic nation attacks New Zealand, are there no innocent people?

If we are attacked by someone who hasn't signed this, our government will match whatever they use tit for tat. If the ability to protect our country is in any way harmed by taking the honorable route, the treaty has become a threat to our country.

[loannes]

Drakoria will sign this pact.

Signed for Drakoria,

Jason R. Drake, President

Henry J. Fredericks, Vice President

Second Senate of the Republic of Drakoria

[iamthey]

To those saying they will not sign, that is perfectly fine; you are sovereign nations and are fully within your authority to abstain. As far as we are concerned we couldn't legally care less what you do in wars that are between yourself and a non-signatory. However should you fight one of us, should you engage in actions restricted, and should you lose, your sovereignty will no longer exist nor will it matter to us; concordantly the people and government official responsible will be tried under this doctrine regardless of whether you signed. These are the standards we will hold ourselves to, as well as our enemies.

Edited July 26, 2009 by iamthey