General Assembly: "Convention on Wartime Deceased"

i have been away from the game for a while.

when you say the gnomes enforce the decision what do you mean?

Serenel wrote:i have been away from the game for a while.

when you say the gnomes enforce the decision what do you mean?

I just mean that there is a 'force' that exists within the WA to enforce the legislation that it enacts. That is just the colloquial term used by most to define the 'force'.

Basically, I just meant to elucidate the point that the enforcement of the law is an infallible aspect of the World Assembly.

do you mean for RP purposes?

because it doesnt effect how members decide their issues from the last i heard.

it certianly wouldnt for me if i joined the WA, thats what i mean for the WA not meaning anything.

and also their resolutions, where it concerns RP would only be enforceable in the RP forums provided by NS, our forums for instance really pay no heed to WA resolutions.

Serenel wrote:do you mean for RP purposes?

because it doesnt effect how members decide their issues from the last i heard.

it certianly wouldnt for me if i joined the WA, thats what i mean for the WA not meaning anything.

and also their resolutions, where it concerns RP would only be enforceable in the RP forums provided by NS, our forums for instance really pay no heed to WA resolutions.

Well, I think that when something is drastically unenforceable, then it becomes a valid argument. Say for instance, there was legislation proposed that would prohibit clipping your toenails in WA member nations, and further didn't clarify how this would be enforced, then 'unenforceable' would be a legitimate argument.

In the case of "Convention of Wartime Deceased", the Resolution basically puts the 'enforcement' into the hands of respective national governments. I would argue that this Resolution is completely 'enforceable', although complete eradication of humans rights abuses in wartime will never be achieved.

Just because a piece of legislation isn't perfect doesn't mean it should be ignored, destroying the opportunity for a step in the right direction.

but this is 'unenforceable' because the respective national governments have no reason to spend scarce resources on trying to enforce a law that would take alot of time, money, and energy to see it was enforced.

also i would argue a 'small' step in the right direction is a giant leap in the wrong direction.

because it gives the other side, and people who are on the fence the excuse that we have already gone far enough, we do not need more beauracracy, and yada yada yada.

also i am just against doing things half-assed as a general rule of thumb.

WA General Fund would most likely pay for a committee that would appoint individuals to oversee military affairs, something like that. Just speculating, of course.

Pretty sure WA members contribute to the General Fund, and it's used for stuff. So I guess a better argument would be 'I don't wanna pay for it'. That's a cop-out in my opinion, though.

Of course, some people would see that as a vital concern, but it shouldn't be the 'be all, end all' of your argument against a particular piece of legislation. Especially in this case, where legislating the conduct of military personnel in terms of human rights abuses is completely within the bounds of the World Assembly's 'jurisdiction'.

okay, i can grant you that on a 'rp' level it can be enforced, even though if it was enforced still nothing would happen, because it is almost impossible to.

however, in a real stance, and in a game stance this resolution has bearing on absolutly nothing concerning players and how their regional governments or even their own government will operate.

also i know it is within their jurisdiction, i dont think anyone was arguing that it wasnt...

If it were a better piece of legislation, it would clarify how enforcement would occur.
I can admit that much, although I still support the resolution through its weaknesses.

After reading both the legislation and the arguments of my esteemed colleagues I, Central Speaker Berard AKA Commander Clash put forth my vote of for/in favor of passing the legislation. Thank you
Warmest regards to you, your kin, and your countries,
Central Speaker Berard.

For Freedom! For Family! For Ourselves!

I think most of the resolution is fine. Sure, I don't want bad things happening to dead people, but enforcing this law would be very difficult. Also, I don't agree with this part:

STRONGLY SUGGESTS that nations make provisions for the proper burial or other post-death rituals, depending on the culture of the nation or of the deceased in question, whenever possible,

RECOMMENDS that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the repatriation of the deceased to their nation of origin, whenever possible,

PROHIBITS the needless dismembering of deceased combatants on the field of battle

That's just ridiculous.

Well, that is why nothing is mandated my good man. The resolution merely 'suggests' that nations take measures to provide for proper burial / repatriation when it is 'possible'. There is no mandate at all, so you can just ignore that part of the Resolution if your nation chooses to do so.

I see that as a rather trivial reason to be against a particular piece of legislation. Would it not be more apt to be against provisions of the legislation that actually legislate activity?

Having read all of the posts in this thread, I'm really not sure where I fall on this issue any more. At its core, I agree with it; I mean everybody deserves to be treated with dignity, especially soldiers who gave their lives for their country. On the other hand, I stand by my previous statements that laws like these are a lot of hot air, as morals are generally suspended during wartime. So really, regardless of whether or not nations have a choice but to comply with WA rulings, can individual soldiers really be expected to heed this rule in the heat of the moment? For this reason, I'm leaning towards a suspicion that this law is a waste of bureaucratic breath.

Jerksborough wrote:Having read all of the posts in this thread, I'm really not sure where I fall on this issue any more. At its core, I agree with it; I mean everybody deserves to be treated with dignity, especially soldiers who gave their lives for their country. On the other hand, I stand by my previous statements that laws like these are a lot of hot air, as morals are generally suspended during wartime. So really, regardless of whether or not nations have a choice but to comply with WA rulings, can individual soldiers really be expected to heed this rule in the heat of the moment? For this reason, I'm leaning towards a suspicion that this law is a waste of bureaucratic breath.

This is not a 'heat of the moment' scenario. This legislation is in regards to the corpses of individuals, and their freedom from torture and dismemberment. Do you honestly believe that torturing a corpse can be forgiven by "heat of the moment". This legislation is basically an affirmation of basic laws that prohibit 'abuse of a corpse'. I don't understand why so many nations seem to have a problem with it. Are all your militaries brutal genocide machines or something ?

not in every senerio but i could definetly concieve of a senerio where 'heat of the moment' would apply.

i dont think its that far out of an example of why this legislation is a bit weaker then what it probably should be.

also the thing is though it has to be, in order for so many people to go along with it, it has to be general, with little bite, and convaluded...but that is more of an inditment against the WA then anything else.

Serenel wrote:not in every senerio but i could definetly concieve of a senerio where 'heat of the moment' would apply.

i dont think its that far out of an example of why this legislation is a bit weaker then what it probably should be.

also the thing is though it has to be, in order for so many people to go along with it, it has to be general, with little bite, and convaluded...but that is more of an inditment against the WA then anything else.

The purpose of these debates is not for non-WA member nations to debate national sovereignty. That is not a valid defense for repeal of legislation in the WA, and I don't want to turn these polls into a situation where all the non-WA nations just vote 'Against' everything. I'm not saying this is happening, but I just want to eliminate the possibility as I feel this would go against the spirit of why I am holding these 'regional WA polls'.

well the spirit of the Dirty South is made up not only of WA member-nations, but non-WA member-Nations as well.

as such to preclude the opinions and beliefs of Non-WA member-nations is to preclude the very essense of the Dirty South entirely.

as you are not taking a picture of the entire body, but merely its left arm.

I understand your position, and I do not require WA membership to be a part of these debates. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the World Assembly, as I only carry a certain number of votes, but still my opinion remains rather unchanged.

I don't want the argument 'national sovereignty' to just become a 'catch-all' argument against a particular piece of legislation. The whole existence of the WA inherently strips national sovereignty through its legislation. Therefore, I think it is dangerous to allow that defense to be used consistently against legislation in the WA.

I respect that nations may be against legislation for many reasons, and I wish to hear about them. I just don't want to go against the 'spirit' of the World Assembly, so to speak.

Serenel wrote:well the spirit of the Dirty South is made up not only of WA member-nations, but non-WA member-Nations as well.

as such to preclude the opinions and beliefs of Non-WA member-nations is to preclude the very essense of the Dirty South entirely.
.

I did no such thing. I explicitly stated that I was not saying that 'overuse' of national sovereignty was occurring. I simply stated that I didn't want that to become a problem...

"I'm not saying this is happening, but I just want to eliminate the possibility as I feel this would go against the spirit of why I am holding these 'regional WA polls'."

Those were my exact words...

I dont think anyone has said, 'well this infringes upon national soverginty, so i dont support it'

i think people are just making reasoned arguments why this legislation is rather meaningless.

if this legislation actually did something, i think alot of people would have their votes changed from NAY to AYE, however this legislation doesnt, and as such people do not support it.

also people arent supporting this legislation because you can not legislate of individuals act on a battlefeild, and as such see the legislation as silly.

yes this is something good to support, and maybe if the resolution was asking the WA to release an opinon that tourtue to corpes was cruel and unusual and not an act supported by this body, more people may be inclined to agree with it, because it is annoucing a position or an opinion, rather then trying to punish nations for partaking in these acts with out sufficient enough means to do so.

.....

i did not say you were precluding us, i just said too preclude us would not be appropriate, as in any future or hypothetical senerio that might come to furishion.

because you stated

The purpose of these debates is not for non-WA member nations to debate national sovereignty. That is not a valid defense for repeal of legislation in the WA, and I don't want to turn these polls into a situation where all the non-WA nations just vote 'Against' everything

which to me implies that you do not want non WA member nations controlling the debate to a degree.

To a degree that would be correct. I don't want non-WA member nations 'controlling' the debate, since they are more likely to have a bias against the World Assembly, as an international organization that strips national sovereignty.

It is not undemocratic that I feel this way, it is actually the opposite. It is a rather scary thought to me that those nations unaffected by the legislation would have the greatest say in determining it. Does that make sense to you?

AND SERIOUSLY I NEVER SAID PEOPLE WERE INVOKING NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM NOT SAYING THAT. JEEZ...

Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:AND SERIOUSLY I NEVER SAID PEOPLE WERE INVOKING NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM NOT SAYING THAT. JEEZ...

oh, my bad, i was under the impression you didnt want people invoking national sovergnty because you said:

The purpose of these debates is not for non-WA member nations to debate national sovereignty.

and

I don't want the argument 'national sovereignty' to just become a 'catch-all' argument against a particular piece of legislation. The whole existence of the WA inherently strips national sovereignty through its legislation.

no need for screaming there my good friend

also i understand you may not want non-WA nations controlling the debate but i was under the impression you wanted to capture the spirit as it were of the Dirty South as it related to the different peices of legislation the WA brought to its floor, well then you have to take into account everyones view point. or your not truely understand how the Dirty South feels about the legislation and what it does.

and just because a nation is not in the WA does not mean they are unaffected by it...also on the other side of the coin there is the very legitamate argument that nations who are in the WA are not even affected by it...

The purpose of these debates is to discuss the validity of the resolution, NOT the validity of the World Assembly. I hope you understand that. Nations who are not in the WA are exempt from the legislation that it passes, therefore they are relatively unaffected by the legislation, in comparison with those who are in the World Assembly.

Like the United Nations, countries who are not in the organization, although indirectly affected by its policies, do not have a direct say in the course of those policies or the administrative affairs of the United Nations.

I want to accurately represent the viewpoints of the region on the issues that are represented in the Resolutions, not on their viewpoints on the "enforcement" of the Resolution, or the World Assembly itself. Those matters are arbitrary considerations as far as these debates are concerned.

someones view point however is made up of a plethera of things, some of those things are how something can be enforced, and the validity of where it is coming from.

if you do not want those factors you can not accuratly assess someones view point on the issue as a whole.

and be honest, WA nations are just as unaffected by this legislation as non-WA nations. Even if the WA had a 'mechinism' through which to enforce this law, the enforcement is just so low that it leads to no real punishment and therefore leads to no real desire for other nations to follow the resolution.

I understand what Cool Egg Sandwich is trying to say here. When you think about it, Non-WA member states have the least stake in the decisions of the WA, so their opinions shouldn't weigh heavily in decisions that we bring to the WA as a region. With that said, every member of the Dirty South ought to be entitled to his or her opinion, and ought to have representation at the WA as a member of the region, if not as a WA member state.

With that out of the way, I really do see this legislation as toothless. Rules of the game aside, I wouldn't vote in favour of something like this in real life - it holds no value, and may as well just be a proclamation of opinion.