[Charlotte Ryberg]

Under discussion now is the draft proposal for Neutrality of Nations, which alludes to NS-UN Resolution 133. As of May 4th, this is not a final version, and may be subject to changes.

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

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

BELIEVES:
- That it is a right of any Member Nation that is not at war in a specific conflict to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;
- That a Neutral Nation must then abide by set obligations to justify their neutrality.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:
a) A ?War? as a military confrontation between two or more Nations;
b) A ?Neutral Nation? as a nation that has formally declared its neutrality before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or aggression existing between two or more other nations, and;
c) A ?Belligerent Nation? as a nation that is currently involved in said war, or a nation that is supporting the military forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

FURTHER BELIEVES that Neutral Nations must be protected from Belligerent Nations, whilst they maintain and ratify the obligations as a Neutral Nation;

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:
a) Harbor, aid, or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies, and any foreign combatant force/militia, including but not limited to: Air Forces, Naval Forces or Territorial Forces, but see Section 4;
b) Actively, or covertly act to hinder or assist any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies, or any foreign combatant force/militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action, and;
c) Conspire to influence the outcome of any armed combat regardless of the level of secrecy or transparency, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict.

CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid:
- If any part of Section 1 is knowingly and deliberately violated, or;
- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time.

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:
a) Declare War, Invade or occupy any Neutral Nation during war or armed conflict, unless the World Assembly is convinced that doing so will actually improve world peace.
b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded or storage of dead personnel, without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;
c) Traverse a Neutral Nation to facilitate the transportation of Resources for war, including but not limited to: war booty, food, weapons, personnel and armaments or agents of Member States, except humanitarian aid, or;
d) Act in other ways that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. ALLOWS trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.

4. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through, or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Humanitarian Aid to civilian populations and to the military wounded, but mandates that any forces that received humanitarian aid shall not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

EMPHASIZES that at the sole discretion, a Neutral Nation may use any of the measures above as appropriate, to deter Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly from resultantly violating the terms of Neutrality, including but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, and economic/trade sanctions/embargoes.

PRAISES all Nations that avoid any armed conflicts for the benefit of world peace.

Co-Authored by Wolfish.

The Jolt discussion thread is here.

[Gerainia]

That's good, but I have a few tiny hitches.

First off, in Section 1, it says it can't hinder a belligrient. The only way of doing that is to comply with a belligrient.

[Domnonia]

Section three moots Section 1a and 1b.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Gerainia, UN Delegate for the IDU, praises the proposal overall, but has hinted at a glitch, in which the only way of a neutral nation to not hinder a belligerent is to comply with a belligerent (Section 1b).

My suggestion is to remove the hindering but add the supporting so the suggestion for Section 1b is:

Quote: Actively, or covertly act to assist or support any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its military allies...[/quote]

Domnonia, IDU Cartographer says that section 3 (which reads "ALLOWS trade between Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes, so long as the items traded are not acquired through war.") contradicts with Section 1a and 1b.

It is being suggested in response, to clarify section 3, so that trade between the civilians of Neutral and Belligerent Nations for peaceful purposes is only allowed. I think neutral nations imposing trade sanctions against armies and warring governments have been known to mostly force them into peace. That comes under 1c. However, we can't block trade with innocent civilians who were just unfortunate to be caught up.

I've also removed the extra comma and the extra 'active', ending the unnecessarily enhancement now that "Belligerent Nation" is pinned down...

"a) Harbor, aid or provide for any Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, including but not limited to: Air Forces, Naval Forces or Territorial Forces, but see Section 4;"

...I also recognise the flaw in Section 1b where Neutral Nations cannot support any force, neutral or belligerent as it stands, so both sections now have to cover just the belligerent nation(s) concerned...

"b) Actively, or covertly act to assist or support any military force or agents of an active Belligerent Nation, its forces, its military allies or militia, through either force of arms or other means of supporting military action, and..."

A suggestion has come through by Amanda to probably tighten the definition of a belligerent's military force and its allies. Unfortunately the Jolt Forums are down so I cannot cross reference between the original copies for now. I appreciate your patience.

[Domnonia]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to our concerns.

Domnonia, a pacifist nation with virtually no conventional military to speak of, supports the aims of this resolution and recognizes the need for such legislation. Therefor, we intend to support it to the fullest. Upon submission to the WA Proposal list, please contact us in regards to campaigning on it's behalf.

[Gerainia]

I concur,

Rodney Neman

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am please to confirm that the draft has now been submitted with the category 'Global Disarmament' for the promotion of world peace and the strength being strong as it affects quite a lot of aspects such as trade (a sacrifice for proper neutrality had to be considered), and military (belligerents cannot invade neutrals). This category is chosen because this would prevent vulnerable nations from being effortlessly invaded by ruthless belligerents.

This proposal aims to provide protection for nations who have declared themselves neutral from a specific war, ensure that nations that declare neutrality act properly as a neutral nation, and more importantly ban belligerent nations from acting in way that threatens the nation?s neutrality of a said war. In section 3, I had to make some sacrifices in terms of trade because I think sending military supplies to Belligerent Nations, or acquiring ?war booty? is an act of supporting a war.

This resolution will not ban Humanitarian Aid at all, but I believe that wounded soldiers treated in a neutral nation should be able to recover in a peacetime environment. Section 5 covers this.

I have done this proposal to the best quality I possibly can, so therefore I strongly urge you and other WA delegates to approve and have as much support as possible for this resolution. I believe that this proposal is vital because a large proportion of WA members have either small populations or poor funding for their defence: others may believe in world peace. Quite frankly I happen to fall into on of those criteria despite my large population, because I believe that war hurts innocent lives that never made the actual decision, or did not expected an invasion from a belligerent nation. I believe that this proposal will help promote world peace to our International Community.

You can read the actual proposal here: www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=neutrality

Thank you very much.

Ends Fri Jul 25 2008

[Antrium]

This proposal is now at vote.