GA Resolution: Conscientious Objection

[Guy]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Conscientious Objection
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Embolalia


Description:
Article I, Preamble:

The World Assembly recognizes the need for able persons to fight in the military of member nations. It further recognizes that many persons may have religious, conscientious, or moral reasons for objecting to military service. The World Assembly believes that these persons should not be compelled to serve against such beliefs. It hereby enacts this resolution to protect these persons.

Article II, Definitions:

1) A conscientious objector shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered a person who has genuine religious, conscientious, or moral objections to participation in war, wherein:
1a) Such objections are held against participation in war of any form, rather than participation in a specific war, except as noted in §1b.
1b) Objection to a specific war shall be considered valid if the war is against a religious or cultural group to which the objector demonstrably belongs, or if the war is one of aggression as defined below.

2) A war of aggression shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered an armed conflict initiated by the conscientious objector's nation without prior provocation from the nation being attacked.
2a) Provocation shall be considered only violent or aggressive acts, terrorism, espionage, or credible threats thereof, against the objector's nation or its allies.
2b) Such shall only be considered provocation if it was funded, sponsored, or approved of by the government of the nation being attacked.

3) Combative military duties shall, for the purposes of this resolution, be considered any duty wherein a person is required to directly cause injury or death to any other person.
3a) This shall include, but not be limited to, placement or detonation of explosives, use of firearms, or control of unmanned aircraft, spacecraft, or watercraft.
3b) This shall not include administrative duties or the furnishing or preparation of medical and food services.

Article III, Requirements of Nations

1) No nation shall compel a conscientious objector to serve in combative military duties.
2) No nation may punish or penalize a conscientious objector for that status.
2a) Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties only during a time of war.
3) Nations may make a good-faith effort to determine the veracity of a person's claim of conscientious objector status.
3a) This may include psychological evaluation of the person in question, as well as non-coercive, non-intimidating interviews with those familiar with the person in question.
3b) Nations must consider in these determinations the possibility that a person may develop objections during or following military service.
4) This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service, however nations shall be strongly urged to reduce, disestablish, or refrain from establishing, compulsory military service.

[Guy]

Sorry for being late with this one.

[Walabamba]

I like it, FOR

[Eist]

I'm for this one too, I'm suprised that there are more votes against than for currently.
I know that there is a lot of talk on the NS forum regarding conscription (for both for and against), I urge those voting, and are concerned as to how this resolution may affect the implementation of conscription, to read Embolalia's blurb on the General Assembly Forum.

[Kanaia]

AGAINST

The WA has no business telling me who I can and cannot conscript into my nation's army.

[Dinarii]

Absolutely for.

[Guy]

Vote on the poll...

[Markanite]

I'm gonna go for with this one

[Consortina]

FOR. Not being forced to kill another human being is something which I consider a basic human right that the GA should enforce.

Anyone against, please note that you can still draft conscientous objectors and use them in your war efforts. You just can't force them to kill. Give them jobs where they support the army without the necessity of killing. Pioneers, scouts, aircraft carrier personnel - the list is long enough.

[Guy]

2a) Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties only during a time of war.

[Consortina]

Well...yes...that's what I meant, kinda.

[Guy]

Emphasis on 'only during a time of war'.

[Consortina]

Dec 9, 2010 4:45:37 GMT -5 Consortina said:

FOR. Not being forced to kill another human being is something which I consider a basic human right that the GA should enforce.

Anyone against, please note that you can still draft conscientous objectors and use them in your war efforts. You just can't force them to kill. Give them jobs where they support the army without the necessity of killing. Pioneers, scouts, aircraft carrier personnel - the list is long enough.

I was assuming that we are only talking about the state of war to begin with.

[Kanaia]

2) No nation may punish or penalize a conscientious objector for that status.

I should be allowed to kick an individual out of my nation if they fail to fight alongside their countrymen.

[Eist]

Dec 9, 2010 9:36:07 GMT -5 Kanaia said:

2) No nation may punish or penalize a conscientious objector for that status.

I should be allowed to kick an individual out of my nation if they fail to fight alongside their countrymen.

Really?
You do realise that they'd have to seek asylum in a foreign country?

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

"2a) Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties only during a time of war."

Only during time of war? This is the nail in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned.

As the NS description of my nation clearly states, "The Republic of Tsim Sha Tsui is a tiny, safe nation, remarkable for its compulsory military service." There is a place in the TST Armed Forces for all citizens, period. Put in your two years, or you can give up your citizenship in favor of permanent residence. Or move to some hippy commune of a country... NationStates already has plenty of these.

This is part of our culture, and one of the few things that really unifies our diverse populace... rich or poor, Chinese or English speaking, black or white.

OOC, this is a worthless resolution that will have no effect on game mechanics that will continue to describe nations as having compulsory military service... not to mention it discourages diversity of nations.

[Cerb]

I am entirely against this resolution. It defines a world standard for morality and religion. My nation’s beliefs may differ a great deal from a variety of others, and therefore it is impossible for the world to judge what a “genuine” reason for refusal to serve might be.

From the holy book of the 24th day Dawgists, the only recognized religion in the nation of Cerberion.
“Those who turn their face to the enemies of the most blessed lands of Cerberion are considered the lowest form of life. Let it be seen that the seventeen serpents of evil shall be caused to come forth from the offender’s bowels and their flesh shall suppurate with the buboes of chastisement.
None shall suffer the offender to live amongst them and they shall be forced to dwell in the wastelands outside of the Dawg Pound, there to suffer their days in tormented penitence.

It shall also be seen that none shall suffer the offender’s family and shall provide no succor or care to them, for their spawn has caused the face of the Holy Dawg to turn from them.”

It would be detrimental for my society to cause an entire family to be shunned just because little Johnny has a yellow streak longer than a baby on an all curry diet.

[ImperialPoland]

against, against, against.

This is proposal is a joke. It's attempting to dictate the structure of a member nation's armed forces by implementing guidelines for the assigning of posts/jobs to members of the service, thereby infringing on national sovereignty. As others have said, the WA has absolutely NO right to determine who i have firing guns in my army. That is for me to decide, and no one else. I will not have some hippie telling me that i have to ask my soldiers first if they want to go shoot at our enemies, that defeats the whole purpose of having an army. In my nation, failing to obey a direct order from a superior to engage the enemy is just as serious as desertion, and the punishment is equally as severe.


I told you all that there would be more ridiculous proposals focusing on the weakening of armed forces after Medical Facilities Protection was passed...

[Anime Daisuki]

I concur with what Cerb said.

[Embolalia]

I hope you all don't mind the author dropping by to answer your concerns. Just Guy invited me, and given that his vote will essentially determine the success or failure of the proposal, I'm inclined to accept that invitation.

I'd like to start by passing on a post Ossitania made on the NS forums, which I think does a very good job of addressing many of the concerns I've been hearing. It can be found here.

Now on to your concerns:

Dec 9, 2010 13:12:38 GMT -5 Tsim Sha Tsui said:

"2a) Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties only during a time of war."

Only during time of war? This is the nail in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned.

As the NS description of my nation clearly states, "The Republic of Tsim Sha Tsui is a tiny, safe nation, remarkable for its compulsory military service." There is a place in the TST Armed Forces for all citizens, period. Put in your two years, or you can give up your citizenship in favor of permanent residence. Or move to some hippy commune of a country... NationStates already has plenty of these.

This is part of our culture, and one of the few things that really unifies our diverse populace... rich or poor, Chinese or English speaking, black or white.

Is killing really the only thing your people have in common with each other? Furthermore, it's not like there's no way you could make a common ground with mandatory public service. For example, you might create a mandatory two year service in your nation's equivalent of the Peace Corps, but with a larger financial benefit for joining the armed services instead. This is, of course, only an example, and I'm sure there are numerous other options.

OOC, this is a worthless resolution that will have no effect on game mechanics that will continue to describe nations as having compulsory military service... not to mention it discourages diversity of nations.

Since it doesn't ban compulsory service, it shouldn't do so in mechanics. And what do you mean by "discourages diversity of nations"? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I truly don't know what you're trying to say with that. Though, I can't envision a meaning of that phrase which I would agree with.

Dec 9, 2010 23:42:09 GMT -5 Cerb said:

I am entirely against this resolution. It defines a world standard for morality and religion. My nation’s beliefs may differ a great deal from a variety of others, and therefore it is impossible for the world to judge what a “genuine” reason for refusal to serve might be.

The reasons the world judges, or would judge, to be valid are in the proposal. Is there actually one you object to? It is up to you, and there are intentionally wide latitudes given to facilitate you in this, to determine if someone truly fits into the categories listed.

It would be detrimental for my society to cause an entire family to be shunned just because little Johnny has a yellow streak longer than a baby on an all curry diet.

Nothing says someone has to become an objector because they object. It simply says the option must be available. Furthermore, cowardice is not cited as a valid reason for objection. Pacifism, sure. But there is a difference, and you are given the power to find it.

Dec 10, 2010 0:15:25 GMT -5 ImperialPoland said:

This is proposal is a joke. It's attempting to dictate the structure of a member nation's armed forces by implementing guidelines for the assigning of posts/jobs to members of the service, thereby infringing on national sovereignty. As others have said, the WA has absolutely NO right to determine who i have firing guns in my army. That is for me to decide, and no one else. I will not have some hippie telling me that i have to ask my soldiers first if they want to go shoot at our enemies, that defeats the whole purpose of having an army. In my nation, failing to obey a direct order from a superior to engage the enemy is just as serious as desertion, and the punishment is equally as severe.

It's most certainly not a joke. (Incidentally, NatSov arguments frequently are jokes. Especially ones that say "the WA has no right" rather than "the WA shouldn't".) It also never says you have to ask your soldiers anything. It's purely opt-out. If someone has an objection, it is their responsibility to say so. Furthermore, how effective are pacifists at fighting? How good of an idea is it to have someone who culturally or religiously identifies with the other side fighting for yours? If you want an effective military, you're really better off without pacifists on the front lines.


I don't know if your system of determining delegate votes would provide for this, but given the closeness of the vote in both the Assembly and, I am to understand, your region, I wonder if it perhaps would not be prudent to consider the abstention of the Delegate from this vote. Your region's delegate vote will essentially determine whether this passes or fails. I submit this for your consideration.

[Cerb]

The reasons the world judges, or would judge, to be valid are in the proposal. Is there actually one you object to? It is up to you, and there are intentionally wide latitudes given to facilitate you in this, to determine if someone truly fits into the categories listed.

My point is that the world assembly should not be establishing my cultural or military operations. I don't want my cowards running off with the cries of "I'm a pacifist" to an international tribunal.

My culture does not reckognize "pacifists" as anything other than cowards. Oure religious edicts clearly define that turning your face from the nation's foe is a sin. If you give these weak individuals a way out through an international tribunal then they will face hoorendus rammifications (as will their family members) upon their return to Cerberion.

What you fail to reckognize is that some cultures don't see any valid reason for refusing to serve and die for their nation. You are going to try and meddle in my nation's affairs and well being by suggesting to my people that they have an option to avoid military service.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

The World Assembly should be focusing on fostering prosperity, encouraging peace between nations, and creating international institutions of questionable merit.

The World Assembly should not be meddling in the internal affairs of member states, imposing their beliefs on member states, and generally discouraging diversity amongst the Assembly.

Furthermore, the authors of this resolution continually lie about the resolution, stating that it does not ban compulsory military service. As Dr. Castro of Glen-Rhodes eloquently put it on the GA forum, "This is entirely untrue. It will not become true, no matter how many times it is said or how many different ways it is emphasized. Governments can only compel COs to serve in the armed forces during times of war. Compulsory military service during peacetime, which many nations practice and even require for citizenship, is not allowed if a person is a CO."

[Guy]

The whole idea of the WA is to meddle in your internal affairs. If there is no meddling in your internal affairs, culture or religion, there is no WA. Cerb, I believe you supported Female Genital Mutilation...

I believe someone has the right to not serve in a capacity in which they would kill or aid to kill another person. However, I also do not agree with the resolution that COs may only serve in any role during wartime. In fact, I find it ridiculous.

[Cerb]

I have a different view on what the WA is intended to do, but I respect your right to disagree.

I can also easily support any WA resolution which lines up with my national philosophy and religion. I think you'll find that is the basis that each nation uses to decide their vote in the WA.

You win some, you lose some. Whichever way it goes I will continue to fight to preserve my nations culture by supporting or fighting against resolutions based on what is best for my people.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Dec 11, 2010 22:07:07 GMT -5 Cerb said:

I have a different view on what the WA is intended to do, but I respect your right to disagree.

I can also easily support any WA resolution which lines up with my national philosophy and religion. I think you'll find that is the basis that each nation uses to decide their vote in the WA.

You win some, you lose some. Whichever way it goes I will continue to fight to preserve my nations culture by supporting or fighting against resolutions based on what is best for my people.

In this case, you win some. (Although the author is apparently going to redraft and resubmit the proposal ASAP, unfortunately.)

[Cerb]

Re-draft away I say. If they can word it so that it doesn't infringe on my religion and culture I might even support it.

[Consortina]

Dec 12, 2010 15:10:37 GMT -5 Cerb said:

Re-draft away I say. If they can word it so that it doesn't infringe on my religion and culture I might even support it.

Maybe the best solution. I think we can agree on some common ground. I don't want people to be made criminals because they refused to kill other people but I want nations to be able to draft anyone into their army if they need to (even if they won't be serving wiht gun in hand).