Civilian Rights Post War

[dclaro]

Civilian Rights Post War
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Waterana

Description:
Recognising war is an inevitable part of the NationStates world.

Fully aware there is a standing resolution already protecting the rights of POWs.

Alarmed by the absence of protections for non-combatants living in an occupied nation after a war has ended, and the possible abuses that can and are being perpetrated against conquered civilians by invading nations.

Convinced measures are necessary for the protection and fair treatment of non-combatants not involved in the armed forces of any nation involved in the war.

A non-combatant is a civilian of any age who did not take up arms against the invading nation either before or after the cessation of hostilities.
The invading nation(s) is those who are in occupation of all or part of the conquered nation after the cessation of hostilities.

Declares that immediately following the cessation of hostilities in any war all UN invader nation(s) involved in the occupation will implement the following….

- All conquered non-combatants must be treated with dignity and respect regardless of sex, age, position in society, religion or cultural group
- The invading nation must, immediately after cessation of hostilities, provide protection and security to the conquered civilian population against violence and looting.
- No non-combatant will be prevented from leaving the conquered nation with any personal possessions they wish to take, however the invading nation is within its rights to prevent anyone entering said nation.

- No non-combatant will be subjected to summary execution.
- No arrests are allowed without just cause and any person who is detained must be charged with a recognised crime and brought to trial as quickly as possible.
- No searches of private homes, businesses or places of worship may be carried out without just cause.
- Body searches of non-combatants are not allowed without just cause and if done the procedure must be carried out in a private setting. Any searches of women must be carried out by and only in the presence of female soldiers or police. No such searches of children are permitted.
- No non-combatants will be forcibly removed from their home or district and relocated unless such a move is necessary for their own safety in cases of unsafe structures, insurgent activity or other just reasons. They must be allowed to return as soon as possible after the problem is solved.

- The invading nation must rapidly restore medical services and hospitals within the conquered nation and provide medical aid to those non-combatants who require it.
- The invading nation must rapidly restore any essential services, including but not limited to water, sewerage, electricity and food distribution networks destroyed or disrupted because of the war.
- The invading nation must repair any infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roads, homes, places of worship, schools and businesses destroyed or damaged because of the war.
- Any non-combatants drafted to assist the rebuilding must be paid a fair wage for their work.

Any civilian who takes up arms after the cessation of hostilities and actively seeks confrontation with the invading nation may no longer be considered a non-combatant.

[cestus3]

Some of the issues pointed out by well-spoken member nations in opposition cause me to recommend a no vote on this matter, and that other members in the region vote no and withdraw support.

The ideas in principle are well-meaning, but the wording of several of the aspects of the resolution are flawed, particularly when it comes to the rights of invading nations to only search places with "just cause". Since every invading nation is likely to consider itself to have just cause to do whatever it likes, I am unclear as to what effect many of these requirements will likely have ...

[Fenure]

True. However as the system stands now there is no protection at all. How else would you word it? Sometimes the invading nation must search homes to keep order. Requring a "just cause" seems the best way to ensure that the rights of the natives are protected.

[cestus3]

It's difficult to say, but if a true impact were to be asked for, perhaps some sort of independent or unbiased body would have the ability to decide when just cause was found, with the ability to ask the NSUN to impose sanctions should an invading nation violate these undefined aspects.

[Fenure]

Yes, but nations can already do that on their own. And in my experience there is no such thing as "independant and unbiased".

[cestus3]

Actually, my position remains that proposals that are seriously flawed and have loopholes should be voted down, and only put into effect once they have been thoroughly checked.

Based on the NSUN thread on this resolution, the resolution has the following oversights and problems:

1) Children can never be searched by forces occupying/invading a country, including even if they are terrorists or carrying contraband.

2) Women can only be searched by female soldiers. This assumes all countries allow women to enter their military forces; if a country has none, this effectively precludes women, including terrorists, from being searched.

3) The ban on searches without "just cause" are either completely meaningless, or so ambiguous that nothing will occur as a result of them; invading forces will likely always decide they have "just cause" to search any place they like -- after all, they had "just cause" to invade in the first place.

4) Personally, I don't think places of worship merit any special protection that other buildings don't receive.

5) The author of the proposal has admitted that no protections are given to those based upon their sexual orientation. This is a troubling omission and not in the spirit of the NSUN.

The fact of the matter is, this is a draft that should have been a draft another few weeks longer. With so many omissions or ambiguities, the proposal should be voted down, since an amendment is unlikely.

I strongly urge our regional delegate to vote no for the reasons stated above. In principle, the resolution is good, but it needs more work. In any event, our delegate DOES need to vote before voting is over ...

[Fenure]

OK I'll give in, the proposal is seriously flawed and should probably be voted down.

[New Zimbabwe]

based on cestus's arguments i too would like to change my vote to a NO.

[dclaro]

with last minute changes from new zimbabwe and fenure the votes are 2 in favour, 3 against.

***Next time you vote stick to the same answer, please