the recent debates on how the World Forum should react on the attack on Doge Land and the LoC have brought up the issue of authorization of defense. Not of an peacekeeping mission but of defending the territorial integrity of the attacked country. There should be an end to this.
This is not the first or last time that a nation has been attacked. Such things will happen in the future, whether we like it or not. It is the aad reality of our world.
I had already proposed (Section E - Exceptions) implementing this into the WF Charter along with other reforms and was dissapointed in not seeing it in the Reform Resolution I which the ambassador from Gianatla proposed and which was passed. Nevertheless, the time has come for this to be written down!
We, the World Forum, as a driving force for peace, must ensure that our members have the necessary authority to defend themselves.
Therefore we propose the following amendment to the Charter of the World Forum Article III - Commonly accepted international law:
Dr. Lina Frere, Ambassador of the Republic of Eflad to the World Forum
The right to self-defense is already part of international law on the rules of war. Furthermore the WF Assembly already formulated, that an attack against another nationâs territory is prohibited, thus if a nation illegally attacks another, it shall always fall back on them from the WFâs point of view.
Therefore we do not see the necessity of passing such an amendment.
Helene Meise Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Gianatla
Mrs. Meise,
I see your point, but I beg to differ.
If it were clear, that the LoC wonât have to fear reprisals after the war for the sole reason that they defended themselves against the attack from Ryccia proper, there would be no need whatsoever for Huawan and others to ask for retrospective authorization for their defence in this conflict. We have seen what Resolutions we have gotten, which imply that this isnât as established.
WF Assembly has prohibited an attack on foreign territory, yes, even the Charter Art. III, Subsec. 2, let. b) says so, but this clause doesnât mean that self-defence is allowed or justified. It only prohibits the attack itself. The defendants have no guarantee at all that the logical step of defense is their right.
If it were as you think, then Huawan and the rest wouldnât need to fear any reprisals and retrospective authorization for their self defence. But they do. They now not only have to defended their nation against an illegal attack, but fear punishment for doing this.
Establishing this article as one in the Charter doesnât only give us the right and justification of using peacekeeping troops, but it ensures that no Memebr State shall be punished for the sole reason of defending their territory.
I hope I have succeeded to show you, that this proposal is necessary.
Thank you!
Dr. Lina Frere,
Ambassador of the Republic of Eflad to the World Forum
Iâm afraid I must concur with Ms Meiseâs statement. I would also like to raise the point that we do have an international standardization of war through the Grovne Conventions. It is therefore our belief that any amendment of the right to collective self-defence should instead be incorporated into the Grovne Conventions rather than the World Forumâs Charter. That way the League of Cordilia still enjoys the right of collective self-defence without any needs to alter the World Forum Charter. Otherwise we might as well incorporate the definitions of Human Rights and other international laws into the World Forumâs Charter.
Tudor SegÄrceanu Speaker of the Assembly & Ambassador of the Kingdom of Stoinia
We too, agree with Ms. Meise on this topic. Adding more to Mr. SegÄrceanuâs argument, We believe this will allow for False Flag Operations to be given a blank cheque. With that in mind, we do not see the necessity nor the benefits of altering the charter.
Kirill Leonov
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Kliegme to the World Forum
Ambassador Frere was visibly upset and angry at her table. She stood up, holding a copy of the draft and walked to the lectern to anwser to the remarks made by the other ambassadors
"Dear Colleagues, it was my hope that you would realise that this resolution is more than necessary.
My hope was, that the World Forum could find some guts to stand behind its principles. Once there is a good resolution, you, an amendment, you crush it fucking immediately. Immediately you crush it, because itâs not from the, the uh, the establishment. Quite honestly, I have lost my patience. Iâve lost my calm because OF YOU PEOPLE.
YOU DONâT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING AGAINST.
âBLANK CHEQUEâ, what the fuck are you talking aboutâ˝
Get some common sense man, really. Get some fucking common sense. And you Mr SegÄrceanu: What did you smoke? Iâd like some of that as well. Get yourself together man. âLETâS take it, eh, put it in the Grovne Conventions and not in the WF Charterâ, man what have you been smoking.
I am up to here points to her forehead with your bullshit. HONESTLY!! What the fuck are we even doing here, huh? PRETENDING THAT WE ARE DOING SOMETHING ISNâT GOING TO HELP the LoC to defend themselves.
One time someone brings a good amendment to the Assembly and you destroy it immediately. IMMEDIATELY. Just because Eflad isnât in the fucking establishment doesnât mean our ideas are shit. For fuck sake what are you going to say to the, thousands, of, of children, dying in in basements and on the roads, eh on the streets huh??
We made this she lifts up the copy of the draft of the Amendment and shakes it so that our fellow countries can defend themselves, fucking defend themselves and you are against it.
What the fuck are we even doing here? HONESTLY!
Iâm tired and exhausted by these little games. This is such shithousery.
ONCE, ONCE EFLAD brought something good and you are all against it. LICKING EACH OTHERS ASS. Nothing, fucking can be done here.
I am fucking done with this. Really, fucking done with this clown show." She stormed out of the Assembly
âWhat is this? A parody of Arnchow?â quipped the Terminan Delegate.
âAnyways, that little temper tantrum aside sheâs right in a sense. Wars can become a bit Murky on the legal side of things and with countries like the Seebees and the Zaakies ready to exploit our loopholes⌠Need I say anymore? Of course if we really want to start up that âoh woe is me for having my bill criticizedâ, imagine representing the interests of 16 different entities that want different things. Itâs a bloody nightmare reconciling contradictory orders, but you donât see me stoop as low as them Chungyuan brawlers. Bloody entertaining to watch, but rather a nightmare to serve with.â
Iâm afraid these discussions have passed rather swiftly. I kindly remind the Assembly to accept constructive criticism to work towards a final resolution instead of throwing tantrums at the cost of national reputations. Without the proper professional attitude, this Assembly will not function properly and will only dissuade any of the remaining respect for this institution. I again reiterate that laws should be ordered accordingly within the proper context. There is no use in implementing a taxation law within the criminal justice codex, but to create a mess within the legislature. We therefore consider this debate closed.
Tudor SegÄrceanu Speaker of the Assembly & Ambassador of the Kingdom of Stoinia