IDU Regional Forum
Rights of Neutral States - Printable Version

+- IDU Regional Forum (https://idugov.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Government Square (https://idugov.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=101)
+--- Forum: WA Delegate's Bureau (https://idugov.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: General Assembly Resolutions (https://idugov.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+---- Thread: Rights of Neutral States (/showthread.php?tid=373)


Rights of Neutral States - Grosseschnauzer - 12-02-2005

Quote: Rights of Neutral States

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Wolfish

Description: RECOGNIZING that all sovereign states have the right to declare war and defend themselves from attack;

NOTING that nations may, from time to time, declare themselves neutral, and

DEFINING a "Neutral State" as one which has formally declared its neutrality with regard to a specific state of war or belligerency existing between two or more other nations, thus

AFFIRMING that it is the right of nations which are not belligerents in such a conflict to make a claim of neutrality;

ALSO AWARE that such states need the support and respect of the NationStates United Nations to maintain that neutrality;

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE THAT a neutral state must abide by the following terms:

1. It must not knowingly harbour, aid, support or provide for any combatant nation, nor its forces nor military allies, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, including but not limited to air forces, naval ships, land forces, agents, or those undertaking to procure the goods and supplies of war.

2. It must not actively or covertly act to hamper or assist any force or agents of an active combatant nation, nor the militarily allied force of another nation, nor any extra-national combatant force or militia, through either force of arms or other support.

3. It shall not conspire to influence the outcome of armed combat through overt or covert means, excepting efforts to mediate or negotiate a truce or end to the conflict.

4. It may allow and facilitate provision of humanitarian aid by neutral third parties to civilian populations and to military wounded, and may allow such organizations to operate from, travel through, or stage in neutral territory, for the express purpose of delivering said aid.

Violation of these terms shall render neutrality broken.

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO FURTHER DECLARE that

Any nation publicly declaring neutrality must be afforded the special rights stated herein for the period during which they maintain the obligations of a neutral state;

A neutral state shall not be invaded, occupied, or otherwise used by belligerents during time of war or conflict by any signatory to this treaty, and

Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;

No declared neutral state shall be used or traversed to facilitate the transportation of war materials, foodstuffs or supplies of any kind, including ammunition, personnel and armaments or agents of signatory states, excluding humanitarian aid noted above, and

At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.

Voting Ends: Tue Dec 6 2005 [/quote]

Rights of Neutral States - Groot Gouda - 12-02-2005

Looks fine, well-written, balanced, thought over. Everything I'd expect from a proper UN resolution.

For.

Rights of Neutral States - Mikitivity - 12-02-2005

Actually Mikitivity has an objection:

Quote: Shall not be used for the internment of prisoners of war, treatment of wounded or storage of dead combatants, without the explicit and uncoerced consent of all parties;[/quote]

Let's say that there is a war and wounded are flown to Saint Katrina, Mikitivity for treatment, but one of the parties objects on the grounds that they don't feel enemy soldiers should be treated. As a humanitarian nation, this resolution reads as though it would be a stop to that.

Rights of Neutral States - Groot Gouda - 12-02-2005

Yes, but helping soldiers (not civilians!) to get back to being able to fight when you're neutral? It's not as if you should expect other nations to be cheering by the sideline for that. As long as civilian aid can be given, that's fine by me.

Rights of Neutral States - Mikitivity - 12-02-2005

Groot GoudaDec 2 2005, 09:03 AM Yes, but helping soldiers (not civilians!) to get back to being able to fight when you're neutral? It's not as if you should expect other nations to be cheering by the sideline for that. As long as civilian aid can be given, that's fine by me. [/quote]
Actually I brought a few questions to Wolfish in the UN forum (as the Red Cross) shortly after posting this.

His reply is that NGO would be immune to this convention, but governments themselves need the consent.

That said, Mikitivity fully supports this resolution.

As for the issue of helping soldiers get back into combat, that is always the case. Even if they aren't "repaired" or brought back to health in time for this conflict, there will always be another war. It never has been the responsibility of doctors to pass moral judgements or to look into the future that the life they might save on the operating table might soon take another life.

The justification of withholding treatment or even humanitarian aid on the grounds that an individual might later go and murder somebody shouldn't prevent the aid in the first place. Instead it then is the role of third parties to press for a peaceful and lasting settlement.

Rights of Neutral States - Antrium - 12-03-2005

Antrium votes for.

Rights of Neutral States - Sober Thought - 12-03-2005

AYE / OUI / JA.

Rights of Neutral States - Lawtonia - 12-03-2005

When giving Humanitarian Aid, one gives aid to a human being not classifying them as a combatant, non-combatant, etc. We know that war is not a glorious thing, soldiers would be unlikely to want to return to combat operations from a neutral country after treatment since their own government would not be able to force them to do so. It would simply be a personal matter on the behalf of the soldier and after seeing the horrors of armed conflict I would suggest the percentage of soldiers returning to combat operations after treatment in a neutral country would be very small.

Lawtonia votes in Favour of this proposal.

(sorry its not too coherent - still on my first cup of coffee B) )

Rights of Neutral States - Malabra - 12-03-2005

We vote FOR.

Rights of Neutral States - Keeslandia - 12-06-2005

The Empire adds its support.

Rights of Neutral States - Grosseschnauzer - 12-06-2005

Quote: FOR    [ 8 ]    [88.89%]
AGAINST  [ 0 ]  [0.00%]
ABSTAIN  [ 1 ]  [11.11%][/quote]

Based on this, the region's votes will be cast FOR the proposal.