The North PacificBoard

28th July 2019

We refer to the resolution above, entitled "Preventing Unjust Warfare".

Continuing PotatoFarmers' longest streak of voting Against in the World Assembly, the Committee of WA Affairs has once again agreed on voting Against the current resolution being voted. In general, the Committee fails to agree with the details of the proposed resolution, and notes that the proposed resolution was badly drafted with various issues with regards to the wording of the resolution.

The points raised by the Committee are highlighted as follows:

1. Clause 1, while attempting to define "initiation of transnational military action", uses terms that are not well defined and can be easily left up to individual nations to decide. For instance, an invasion may include the sending of unidentified militia to other nations, or to send military troops to disputed territories; while "transnational peace" is a broad term that can be widely interpreted.

2. Furthermore, in clause 1, the usage of the term "hostile and violent measure across international borders" means that certain actions which disturb "transnational peace" are not covered under the definition of "initiation of transnational military action", such as:
i. The hacking of essential systems in another nation, an action which is hostile but not violent;
ii. The usage of diplomatic tools such as removing the diplomatic immunity to diplomats from other countries, actions which are hostile but not violent;
iii. Uprisings against the local government which spills over into other nations, an action which is not hostile but violent;

3. Clause 2.a.i utilises the term "undeniable and concrete evidence". The usage of the word "undeniable" is questionable, as many nations can continue to deny actions especially if they are done in secret or if the links are not obvious. If a nation is required to prove that the evidence is "undeniable", then the process to prove this may take too long for any military action to have actual effects to counter the military action. This can be said about "well-documented" as stated in clause 2.a.ii. While we understand the proposer's intention in their phrasing of the proposal, it may cause more harm than good unless it is better worded.

4. Clause 2.a.iii utilises the term "competent national authority" without prior definition. Perhaps the proposer refers to state actors? In that case, this is a term that needs to be properly defined, especially with the adjective "competent" being used.

5. Clause 2.a.iv has been badly worded. A detailed read of the clause shows that it is split into 3 parts as shown below:

6. The Committee notes that Section 2, Article 4 of GAR #2 states that "Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack." However, if nations are forbidden by Clause 2.a.i to take military actions against armed attack without "undeniable and concrete evidence", then the rights as given by GAR #2 cannot be utilised, which further contradicts Clause 2.a.iv.

7. Clause 2.c is an example of how a badly worded clause may cause lots of trouble. "Costs" and "expected returns" are subjective and up to a nation's interpretation, and nation-states can choose to understate the "costs" of a military action and/or overstate the "expected returns" to justify a military action. This is especially so as the examples of "costs" referred to by the resolution ("human life, economic output, and political turmoil") are implicit costs which cannot be easily measured or accurately predicted. This would, therefore, cause problems with regards to enforcement.

8. Clause 2.d effectively renders the entire resolution invalid, as it allows military actions to be taken immediately in situations where "an immediate response is needed to neutralize a proven direct and imminent threat". Unlike the provisions given in clause 2.a, this clause states that the only pre-requisite for military action is a "direct and imminent threat". The word "threat" can be broadly defined to mean anything under the sun. Just consider the following situations, and you would see the absurdity of this clause:
i. Nation A used to have comparative advantage in producing handbags, as labour costs are lower in Nation A as compared to other nations. However, due to regulation changes in Nation B in making costs cheaper, Nation A is losing its comparative advantage in the production of handbags to Nation B. This can be seen as an economic threat to Nation A, and therefore, justify a military action to destroy all factories in Nation B producing handbags, to neutralise the threat Nation B has to Nation A.
ii. Nation C has a strong food culture. They pride themselves in having various kinds of street food as part of their food culture. However, due to globalisation, multi-national companies from Nation D have started to set up fast food restaurant in Nation C, and cause the food culture in Nation C to die out due to the rising popularity of fast food in Nation C. This can be seen as a cultural threat to Nation C, and therefore, justify a military action to destroy all fast food restaurants in Nation D as these form the basis of the cultural threat and need to be neutralise.
Yes, we may be talking about extreme cases here, but if these are threats per se, then what is not a threat? All military action would therefore be justified and there would be no reason for this resolution.

The above list is non-exhaustive with regards to the issues with the resolution. However, these points clearly highlight how flawed the resolution is. Therefore, with due consideration with all the issues with the proposal, PotatoFarmers would therefore vote Against the proposed resolution.