View Topic

"CIVILIAN PROTECTION ACCORD"
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Wheeled States of Bifid

The World Assembly,

AWARE that armed conflict is inevitable,

DEEPLY SADDENED by the needless loss of innocent life during such conflict,

DISTRESSED at the burden placed on civilians during armed conflict.

THUS DETERMINED to prevent such loss of life, and ease such burdens,

FOR THE PURPOSES of this resolution hereby defines civilians as any non-military entity not engaged in, or acting in direct support of combat operations,

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY hereby decrees:
       

• Members that are engaging in combat operations within their borders shall be required to establish well designated demilitarized zones to be used exclusively to care for civilians, plan evacuations of civilians, and other efforts coordinating such activities.
• Demilitarized zones shall:

           1.Be established as far from strategically significant locations as is practicable and,\
            2.Have adequate space and equipment to offer food, shelter and basic medical facilities to the known civilian population of its establishment.

       

• No passive or active military operations, including launching or coordinating attacks, troop movement or planning shall take place from inside demilitarized zones; Further none of the above shall be directed at a demilitarized zone,
• Members shall be forbidden from attempting to gather intelligence or otherwise gain sensitive knowledge covertly from a demilitarized zone, even if such intelligence-gathering activities take place outside the demilitarized zone or remotely,
• Members shall not move civilians into strategically significant areas,
• Members shall not interfere with efforts to evacuate civilians from areas of conflict.

    Co-Authored by Point Breeze
Delegate's Opinion: I'm overall against this one... Civilian loss is a part of war and by it's nature could be considered a strategic movement. Removing it from war is not a fair and complete option and this is one of the few WA proposals I will ever say this for but... It interferes too much on something that I do believe should be interfered with. Also, I suspect that there is a great deal of potential for misuse that has not been accounted for... There pretty much always is.

Against.

Voting NAY

Against.

already voted against this one

Voting nay, although I think "civilian loss is a part of war" is a rather blase attitude to have, and a totally incorrect one. It's gone hand in hand with conflict in the past simply because we've been unable to eliminate it. Now, it's a thing because people don't want to eliminate it, but we could well do so.

I think this is a little outdated...

Reon needs to post the new votes!

I think this is a little outdated...

Reon needs to post the new votes!

Bleh, I hit the "Unread Posts" in this forum button and didn't check the date.

Sorry guys, yeah I need to post all the new crap.

And Weissreich... While it's true civilians and people in general could be wholly safe when nations go to war and such the mere fact that people are unwilling to make it so is the reason that it is a part of war. And it is not within the WA's power or project to force it to not be so.