Repeal "Military Freedom Act"

Concerned about the use of World Assembly resolutions to escape the duties of citizenship,

Applauding the protection of conscientious objectors and not blindly classifying such persons as ‘cowards’,

Supporting the World Assembly’s general stance against war and towards the maintenance of peace,

Regarding wartime conscription as originating fundamentally out of existential crises against the state,

Believing that the provisions set forth in this resolution provide large means of evasion for able-bodied personnel in military service, and,

Hoping that a suitable replacement which addresses these issues will be passed forthwith,

This august World Assembly:

  1. Applauds that the resolution prevents nations from punishing or penalising conscientious objectors for their status, recognising that they should not be forced to fight, and for allowing nations ‘to determine the veracity of a person’s claim of conscientious objector status’; but

  2. Challenges the definition of ‘combative military duties’ in II.(3).a, as ‘the equipping of weaponry to machines or vehicles’ explicitly falls under the definition, but is still not a ‘duty wherein a person is required to directly cause injury or death to any person’, since the movement of ammunition and war supplies from trucks to weapons is a time-consuming and labour-intensive part of modern warfare which does not require combat per se;

  3. Objects to the clause II.(1).b, in that ‘objection to a specific war shall be considered valid if … the objector is within two degrees of consanguinity of any citizen of the opposing nation’s military’, as:

a. in the case of modern globalisation, this could allow large segments of the population to avoid military service, since immigration has left many populations in many nations, and it is quite likely that they will have joined their nation’s military in total war and

b. the chance of encountering someone within two degrees of consanguinity on a battlefield are slim, due to the small number of persons within two degrees of consanguinity;

  1. Disputes the definition of a ‘war of aggression’ in II.(2).b, since it is not inconceivable that a nation did not directly approve a terrorist attack, but knew of it and allowed it to happen regardless, which justifies punitive actions as a result of gross negligent inaction;

  2. Disputes the requirement in III.(3).b that ‘nations must consider … the possibility that a person may develop objections during … military service’, since there is likely no manner in which this can be distinguished from either cowardice or post-traumatic stress disorder, the latter being a medical condition that must be resolved immediately and, for personal well-being, cannot be not confused with conscientious objection; and hence, this esteemed World Assembly;

  3. Repeals the Military Freedom Act.

More info here: NationStates • View topic - [DEFEATED] Repeal "Military Freedoms Act"

This resolution is now up for vote.

Bai Lung will vote AGAINST.

“Repeal “Military Freedom Act”” was defeated 9,746 votes to 1,991.