Ban of Perfidy in Warfare
#1

Quote: GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
ID: elke_and_elba_1398582826

Ban of Perfidy in Warfare
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Elke and Elba

Description: Convinced that every state has certain obligations even in times of war, such as towards the wounded,

Believing that combatants taking advantage of these obligations to commit any perfidious action violates the rule of international law,

Recognising that concerted international action is required in order to prevent the occurrence of such deplorable acts,

Understanding that such perfidy involves the despicable betrayal of the implicit trust accorded by the adversary, also,

Undoubting that every combatant should thus be accorded their equal rights and protections in fulfilling their obligations, especially since these obligations are fulfilled in a spirit of good faith,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. DEFINES perfidy to be the act of gaining an enemy's trust through actions that suggest good faith, but with the intent of betraying the enemy to achieve an advantageous position;

2. FURTHER DEFINES perfidy to be a war crime;

3. PROHIBITS combatants of member states from resorting to perfidy in order to capture, wound or kill any adversary in any war, through methods including, but not limited to,
a) falsely declaring civilian status,
b) falsifying injury,
c) falsely declaring the intent to surrender or seek truce;

4. FURTHER PROHIBITS combatants of member states from intending to mislead their adversaries by utilising signs, emblems and/or signals,
a) associated with the World Assembly,
b) associated with any internationally recognised organisations,
c) representing any message of intent understood universally,
to seek protection and/or protected status through the use of such signs/emblems/signals;

5. FORBIDS combatants of member states from utilising any form of identification, military or otherwise, of any other sovereign state except their own during combat; of which such identification includes but is not limited to flags, emblems, military uniforms and military insignia, unless,
a) the other sovereign state has agreed to a request made by the member state to utilise their own identification, and,
b) the other sovereign state is not a neutral or adversary party in the conflict;

6. MANDATES that member states prosecute non-compliant combatants representing them in conflict;

7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prohibits the use of tactics that may utilize deceit or trickery, such as diversions or ambush, so long as the action does not constitute perfidy, and;

8. FURTHER CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as applying to non-physical warfare, such as cyber warfare.[/quote]

Tally: 0-0-0
Reply
#2

Not voting, but I quite like this one. I wish it had got more feedback in draft stage, though.
Reply
#3

It's undoubtedly a sensible policy so I'll be voting in favor. I agree with DSR though - the topic is sort of dry and not many nations put any effort into understanding international laws on war conduct. You'll usually get the fabled argument, passed down through generations by wise U.S. war hawks from the 1810s "but war is war and I wanna."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)