GA Resolution: Preventing Unjust Warfare

[Lenlyvit]

Preventing Unjust Warfare

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: United Massachusetts

Affirming the fundamental truth that not all armed conflict is just and that nations hold a fundamental responsibility to discern between just and unjust warfare,

Noting that while these decisions may certainly present difficult challenges, a series of procedures ought to be established on the international level to prevent such unjust conflict,

Believing such an aim to be fitting with the stated goals of this Assembly -- namely, to spread peace and goodwill worldwide,

The General Assembly, with the advice and consent of the delegates and member nations thereof, and by the authority of the same, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the "initiation of transnational military action" as the act of disturbing a transnational peace, either through a declaration of war, invasion, or another hostile and violent measure across international borders,

2. Prohibits member-states from initiating transnational military action:

a. except for the purposes of:

i. self-defense against a hostile actor, or the defense of another nation, where undeniable and concrete evidence establishes that said hostile actor has initiated transnational military action, or will imminently do so,

ii. preventing the well-documented, widespread, and systematic abuse of human rights, as established under international law, or where there is well-documented evidence that such an abuse will likely occur,

iii. assisting a competent national authority in combating a violent non-state actor within their territory, with the permission of said competent authority,

iv. the fulfillment of binding and pre-existing national obligations under treaty or international law, or the exercise of rights specifically afforded to nations under extant international law,

b. in violation of their legal obligations and agreements, both internally and internationally,

c. where its costs, in human life, economic output, and political turmoil, far outweigh its expected returns,

d. or before all feasible diplomatic and/or non-violent efforts to end hostilities have failed, excepting those situations where an immediate response is needed to neutralize a proven direct and imminent threat, and,

3. Further prohibits non-state actors, excluding those salaried by a state and acting formally on its behalf, from initiating transnational military action in a World Assembly member-state.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Louisistan]

The Standing Committee of the Confederate Senate of Louisistan, acting on behalf of the Senate in recess, has considered and rejected this resolution. It has submitted that decision for assent to the House Committee on World Assembly Affairs. The Committee has ruled against that decision.

Without a clear mandate by Congress, the Confederacy defers to the Delegate's Prerogative.

[Jabberwocky]

If I start a war, it's just; if YOU start one against me, it is unjust. I see this proposal as unenforceable and unpunishable.

[Haganham]

Against. 1. is too vague, 2. c is too subjective 2.d is too broad.

[Twobagger]

At first, I had read and come to the same conclusion as Jabberwocky above. However, after reading through the GA debate thread, I am sufficiently convinced that the WA does in fact have sufficient mechanisms for determining whether or not a violation of this resolution has occurred, and for recommending proper sanctions to punish such a violation.

I have no further objections to this resolution. I think that, on the balance, it is a good resolution that would do much to curb wasteful defense spending that could be better put to use just about anywhere else. I have therefore voted in favor.

For those who don't wish to read through the NS thread yourself, the appropriate resolutions are here: GA 390 (neutral finder of fact), and here: GA 440 (Sanctions for rule-breakers). Both those should be clickable.

Edit: the parentheticals are just a small sample of what the resolutions do, and are meant just to show which of the resolutions support the claims I have made above.

[Deleted]

There is ample, existing WA legislation around the rules of military engagement, human rights abuses, war crimes, genocide, etc. This resolution simply seeks to gather all those themes within the frame of 'any-given theoretical military action', then provide a crudely naive template of check-boxes for the WA to make arbitrary judgements as to whether those actions are or are not "just".

Every conflict comes with its fair share of atrocities and civilian casualties, by all actors, at any given time. Taking a balance-sheet approach to all that, as rationalization or justification i.e. c. where its costs, in human life, economic output, and political turmoil, far outweigh its expected returns, gives me the willies.

Not only does this resolution strike me as unnecessary and impossible to enforce, it also strikes me as somewhat dangerous given its potential to give a false legitimacy to some conflicts provided these arbitrary rules are followed. I don't see that as the WA spreading peace and goodwill worldwide. I see that as the WA enabling conflict.

THX, through its WA proxy, will be voting Against.