Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Anthony was collecting his things to leave, but hearing Vedran's appeal sat back down and keyed up the Mic. "We agree with all the items discussed above. Unfortunately getting people to agree on what is and is not considered a civilian target or acceptable risks is a very open field of subject. Many, for example, view our last attack on the government center of Khmer as being deplorable whereas we view it as taking the war to those responsible most directly and avoiding unnecessary casualties. In our eyes, members of the government of a force which has conducted aggressive activities is constituent of the military force of that state's body." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) We too agree with much that has been said and very much prefer the idea of it being a treaty, rather an an enforced edict. Most if not all of the suggestions put forward by arctica are fine by us; we are interested to see what else is put forward. Edited July 20, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Anthony was collecting his things to leave, but hearing Vedran's appeal sat back down and keyed up the Mic. "We agree with all the items discussed above. Unfortunately getting people to agree on what is and is not considered a civilian target or acceptable risks is a very open field of subject. Many, for example, view our last attack on the government center of Khmer as being deplorable whereas we view it as taking the war to those responsible most directly and avoiding unnecessary casualties. In our eyes, members of the government of a force which has conducted aggressive activities is constituent of the military force of that state's body." Thadon decides that the reaction has been positive so far since a departing representative chose to stay after hearing him, so he continues. "If the holders of executive power in a given state are not technically members of the military, then I believe killing them can be considered acceptable civilian casualties, at least here when determining the definition of war crimes. Some may argue that killing the enemy's top members of government is a bad move, but really that is debatable and definitely not a war crime." He cuts himself off there and decides to wait to see what the others will put forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amyante Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 "Hmm... We agree as well, though we wish to make another addition. So far, the majority of the discussion has been about what can be considered a war crime during wartime circumstances. We would like to suggest including in the list 'attacking a nation without a valid casus belli and declaration of war', as that would be deplorable as well." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) "Hmm... We agree as well, though we wish to make another addition. So far, the majority of the discussion has been about what can be considered a war crime during wartime circumstances. We would like to suggest including in the list 'attacking a nation without a valid casus belli and declaration of war', as that would be deplorable as well." "That opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms, though. What is a 'Valid Causus Belli?' People have so many different definitions on that, it's better not to go there." Anderson looked around, seeing who was surprised at his speaking up. Until that moment, he'd chosen to remain quietly in a corner. many of them probably wouldn't even know what nation he represented, unless they knew a bit of Promised Land's history, as he had been there with the New Cymru representative when they arrived. "Some people prefer to have the element of surprise on their side, so if the Declaration of War is at the time of the attack or a little after, they might object to that definition." Edited July 20, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 "I agree.. A Casus Belli can be very old before acted upon. It's a matter of timing and a lot of old Sun Tzu proverbs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amyante Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Amyante nods, seeing the flaws in her proposal pointed out by other representatives. She really needed some experience with this kind of thing, but unfortunately it was one of the things that came with practise. - "I understand. My main concern was to avoid preemptive strikes on a government even before war is declared to not fall under the treaty we are discussing." She sat down again, opting to listen to the others rather than speak up herself. Things were going ion the right direction overall, and she was intending to learn as much as she could before returning to Zargathia. Something told her she'd be needing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 "Don't gert me wrong, they were good suggestions, and if people could agree on a just CB, it would have had merit. Perhaps as the definition of a valid CB, we could put forward the document drafted by Mykep? A curious organization he founded in the GPI." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 "Indeed, pre-emptive strikes and misinformation are simply part of a good strategy. And there have been a number of undeclared wars fought throughout history. Perhaps we should move on to prisoners of war and who qualifies for prisoner of war status. Naturally, regular armies and militias should, but not irregular groups that hide among civilians and do not carry arms openly." OOC: I am getting my ideas from the existing conventions of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) "The Empire already treats its PoW's better than even those conventions required, but we would definitely agree to adopting the conventions as a basis level for how all PoW's should expect to be treated. Of course, any final write up will have to be approved by the legislature, but given we all respect our prisoners I doubt it'd be a problem." Edited July 22, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 "Indeed, pre-emptive strikes and misinformation are simply part of a good strategy. And there have been a number of undeclared wars fought throughout history.Perhaps we should move on to prisoners of war and who qualifies for prisoner of war status. Naturally, regular armies and militias should, but not irregular groups that hide among civilians and do not carry arms openly." OOC: I am getting my ideas from the existing conventions of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant "I would think a POW is any captured person who was opposing you through any force of arms, in any type of warfare, whether they be military or civilian. Peaceful protestors would, of course, NOT be eligible for capture, and should be left alone." "The Empire already treats its PoW's better than even those conventions required, but we would definitely agree to adopting the conventions as a basis level for how all PoW's should expect to be treated. Of course, any final write up will have to be approved by the legislature, but given we all respect our prisoners I doubt it'd be a problem." "Perhaps a document based on how you treat your POW's could be submitted to this conference?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) 1. Anyone showing obvious displays of surrender, including white flags, weapons held in their hands above their heads in a non-threatening position, laying on the ground hands behind their back, etc.. are to be regarded with the greatest of care. They should first be disarmed, then sent to the nearest PoW transport truck under escort. Each truck should have a minimum of 1 armed guard per 6 unarmed prisoners in the event of upheaval.2. Prisoners of war should be interned in a PoW facility. The PoW facility should be held to the standard of guest quarters, meaning that there will be at most 2 prisoners per cell, the cells shall be spacious enough to provide comfort and basic toilet facilities as well as access to basic television, news, and any minor comfort requests the prisoners may make that can be accommodated without jeopardizing facility security and within the facility budget. 3. War criminals do not get treated as guests, they are given a basic cell as within Dragonisian Prisons after convicted. Before then they are treated as PoW's. The time to trial should be less than 1 month. 4. War Criminals convicted and sentenced to death are to be executed in their sleep on a random date within a week's time by bullet to the conscious related centers of the brain to ensure the highest level of mercy in carrying out the court's instructions. They are to be given no more than 3 days after their sentence.. to have opportunity make peace with their God. The execution is to be private and non-humiliating. 5. At the end of war, Prisoners of War may be released to the former enemy state as part of negotiations. They may also be released, if not negotiated, at any time deemed fitting by the Dragonisian Legislative Council. 6. Torturing of PoWs for information is strictly prohibited. Basic interrogation techniques and interception of communication are permitted, but no physical harm is to be done to enemy combatants while they are in our care. 7. The Right to Asylum. Prisoners of War who claim to have been compelled to fight for their employing state have the choice to petition for asylum. To do this they must disavow all loyalty to their former state and undergo psychological screenings and endure a 1-2 year repatriation course at the end of which they become a citizen of Dragonisia and the Empire. To earn this right they must serve 1 year in the military services of the state of Dragonisia. Those wounded in this process or honorably discharged still qualify as they have fulfilled their terms. Those who die during this process will be recognized as any other national hero would be so long as they were not formerly a War Criminal. Edited July 22, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 "Well, that seems straightforward enough. Can we agree on this document as something to go by on treatment of POW's?" He addressed that question to the other delegates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) "Well, that seems straightforward enough. Can we agree on this document as something to go by on treatment of POW's?"He addressed that question to the other delegates. I believe the Dragon Empire's doctrine is too specific for our purposes: we need more flexibility to allow for differing circumstances. I have included what I perceive as the general ideology behind DE's points and my previous four points (given their positive reception) in a possible draft of The Sydney Convention: Preamble:We, the undersigned nations and leaders, do hereby agree to refrain from certain actions during time of war to better ensure the protection of non-combatants. Section I: Definitions The following actions (further defined below) shall be know as War Crimes and shall not be undertaken by signatories of this document. 1. Development, storage or use of bio-weaponry. 2. Use of Nuclear/radioactive weaponry on civilian targets. 3. Excessive use of force against non-combatants. 4. Excessive use of force against surrendered combatants. Section II: Bio-Weaponry No signatory of this document shall, directly or indirectly, develop or store weapons-grade viral, bacterial, or other infections diseases. Furthermore, no signatory shall intentionally aid in the spread of a viral, bacterial or other infections disease, regardless of its grade, amongst combatants or non-combatants of any nation. Section III: Nuclear Weaponry No signatory shall intentionally use fission or fusion weapons against non-combatants. Section IV: Treatment of Non-Combatants No signatory shall exercise excessive force against non-combatants of any nation. Excessive force against civilians includes but is not limited to: genocide, mass-murder, relocation (other than for their own protection), inhumane relocation (for any reason), and failure to provide reasonable and proper care to the non-combatants under one's control. Section V: Treatment of Surrendered Combatants No signatory shall exercise excessive force against combatants who reasonably and obviously surrender. Excessive force against surrendered combatants includes but is not limited to: murder (with or without trial), abuse while under custody, forced interrogation, and failure to provide reasonable and proper care. Section VI: Membership Nations may sign or withdraw from this agreement at their own discretion. Nations which are found to have, since the time of their initial signature, violated this document shall be removed and/or prevented from resigning this document for a period of two years. Additional non-military measures by signatories against the violating nation are encouraged but not required. Edited July 23, 2009 by iKrolm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "I will present this document before the Legislature to bring it to a vote. It looks alright to me thus far." Davis noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Aiginor votes no. We will not sign this treaty, no matter how peaceful we are. It is an excellent idea, but it is one that will only work if every nation in the world signs it. Edited July 23, 2009 by Arkantos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "Why not sign it? You will be treating any potential POW's you take humanely anyway, nor will you be developing weapons for use on noncombatants, I am sure, considering your origins. What do you lose by signing it?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) "The Empire has approved the Syndey Accords on PoW Treatment and war crimes definition by a majority vote of the legislature." Anthony Davis, Signing for the Dragon Empire Office of Triumvirate Adviser. Edited July 23, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: Aren't the weapons being banned effectively the only counters smaller nations have against larger bullying nations? Also, what provisions have you made in this bill regarding nations using these weapons on their own soil against invaders, a la World in Conflict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: the only weapons banned are the biological ones. The others are merely limited in use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 OOC: the only weapons banned are the biological ones. The others are merely limited in use. OOC: Again, sometimes reeking havoc on enemy populations is the only way for a smaller nation to fight back against a larger, better equipped aggressor...not unlike what happened in the East African War Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "My country is not prepared to sign the Convention at this time, namely because of Article III. While it is extreme to use nuclear weapons against population centers, the threat of this is the basis of nuclear deterrent. Forbidding a number of states to utilize nuclear weapons against civilians removes any credibility from threats of using it. This, in turn, nullifies the concept of MAD and takes away any nuclear deterrent the country had. Most nations do not develop nuclear weapons so they can use them at their earliest convenience, they develop them so hostile states will be more wary of attacking them. The fear of force is often more effective than force itself. Additionally, before signing this document we must have a definition on what combatants warrant POW status. The representative from Promised Land has suggested that anyone who fights be deemed worthy of POW status. However, Arctica's policy has long been that, among others, people like spies, mercenaries, and irregulars that do not carry arms openly (instead choosing to hide behind civilians), rather than being allowed POW status will be captured, interrogated, and possibly executed." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) The Dominion respects the principles put forward in this proposal, but unless some of the wording is changed we will just issue our own independent war doctrine. We are referring to article III, when you use nuclear weapons EVEN against military targets you know that some civilians will be killed in the process; meaning there is no way to really use weapons legally under this doctrine. Edited July 23, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) "The reason we have signed this treaty is because if MAD is invoked.. this treaty becomes tissue anyhow. We're signing the treaty based on normal situations, not based on the thoughts of a full blown thermonuclear war." Edited July 23, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vedran Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 "The reason we have signed this treaty is because if MAD is invoked.. this treaty becomes tissue anyhow. We're signing the treaty based on normal situations, not based on the thoughts of a full blown thermonuclear war." "MAD does not have to be invoked for nuclear deterrent to work; rather, the threat of it has to be present. Now, I believe this more our Mundokiir's area of expertise, but I heard her mention once that Arctica's nuclear arsenal is always on standby. This means that if nuclear missiles were detected flying at Arctica, within maybe half an hour or an hour, our own missiles would be in the air flying to their cities. Strategically, MAD becomes worthless if it actually happens. The threat of it is what makes it work. By signing this treaty with Article III intact, should the above situation ever happen, our missiles would be sitting in their silos as our cities burn." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.