|
Protection of Humanitarian Vessels and Personnel Act
| |
| Augusta_Aurelius | Date: Monday, 12 Mar 2012, 1:21 AM | Message # 1 |
 Lieutenant colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 109
Status: Offline
| Protection of Eleemosynary Vessels and Personnel Act
Written and Proposed by Senator Augusta Aurelius of Deralia and the Tammuz Sector
Our members often transport basic eleemosynary supplies, including but not limited to, doctors, medicals supplies, and in times of war, prisoners of war and non-combatants through interstellar space. In interstellar space, some could say interactions are not as codified as they are in regard to sovereign space. It is a concern that moving of eleemosynary supplies through these areas could also be used as shield to transport other materiel in times of war. I am deeply disturbed by the simple thought of Prisoners of War being used as human shields against military activities in interstellar space, or even sovereign space. While none have a history of doing so, it is still something that must be avoided should war break out among our members. Thus, I propose the following.
Article I
Items and persons not being used to directly support combat operations are defined as including but not limited to prisoners of war, medical personnel and supplies, non-combatants, and humanitarian supplies.
Article II
This act discourages the practice of transporting eleemosynary cargoes in the same vessel(s) or convoy as materials directly supporting combat operations, and recommends that when possible, exclusive vessels and convoys be used to transport eleemosynary cargoes.
Article III
This act calls upon the member states of the Empire to adopt a standard for identifying their eleemosynary transports, just as the Protection of Medics in Conflicts (Inter Planetary) Act by Senator Bernard Oriel established the legal symbol for medical personnel and facilities in war, this act will do the same. The galactically recognized symbol associated with eleemosynary aid personnel, vessels, and facilities shall be a capital E of the alternative basic alphabet, in red or white coloring.
Article IV
While eleemosynary vessels should not be excessively armed, they should be capable of defending themselves. Eleemosynary vessels should not initiate hostilities, and can not be fired upon, by the statutes of this law, unless violating this provision. If found to be participating in aggressive actions or supporting combat operations, eleemosynary personnel, vessels, and facilities forfeit their protections under this act.
Article V
If in the sovereign space of another member, eleemosynary vessels shall be subject to request of their cargo manifest, which must be transmitted, as well as other security checks, including and up to an on-board search. Such a search must be complied with, and should not put into harm the vessels or crew of either party. Searching parties are prohibited from firing upon eleemosynary vessels which comply with their demands of security checks. Eleemosynary vessels which do not comply with security checks forfeit their protections allows under this bill.
The Lekpin Amendment
I Eleemosynary vessels, when used for relief in a combat zone, war zone or other area in which two of more parties are engaged in a combative situation, will not be armed or necessitate armed escorts.
II Eleemosynary vessels, when utilized outside of combat for aid missions, relief, relocation, may be lightly armed for the purposes of defense and transport protection.
The Dedicated Aid Amendment
Vessels used for Eleemosynary Aid (philanthropic, charitable, et al.) shall not be temporarily repurposed warships. Should a vessel be used to provide aid, it must be permanently fitted for such operations within the limitations of this legislation. It is clarified that it is not solely the cargo or crew of a vessel that makes it an aid vessel, but also its purpose.
The Vanden/Cerra Amendment
I The bill shall be retitled the Protection of Eleemosynary Vessels and Personnel Act, and has made changes to its wording accordingly.
II This bill recognizes that humanitarian acts, also known as eleemosynary acts, are not unique to the human species, and common among all beings.
The Cambrist Amendment
Eleemosynary vessels shall be required to obtain eleemosynary transponder codes from the Bureau of Ships and Services. Unless the vessel is in full compliance with the regulations regarding eleemosynary vessels, BoSS will not issue eleemosynary transponder codes. If a vessel is found using eleemosynary transponder codes, and violating the laws issued in this act, it shall be immediately forfeit by the owner, and subject to impound; such a vessel shall be auctioned off, the proceeds of which go to the BoSS Discretionary Fund, from which the owner and all previous owners are barred.
Augusta Aurelius
Queen Conosrt of Deralia
Chair of the Human Rights Monitoring and Crisis Resolution Sub-Committee of the Planetary Defense Committee
Senator of Deralia and the Tammuz Sector (30 BBY - 18 BBY, 10 BBY - Present)
Message edited by Queen_Deralius_III - Thursday, 12 Apr 2012, 10:25 PM |
| |
| |
| LomenRyuun | Date: Tuesday, 13 Mar 2012, 2:26 PM | Message # 2 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 696
Status: Offline
| Good wisdom from Deralia. I am glad to see your time humbled has been well spent, Senator. I am sure all will welcome this bill as a sign that Deralia has the best interests in mind of the humanitarian efforts within the galaxy. Druckenwell is in favor.
Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation
|
| |
| |
| Roman_Lekpin | Date: Sunday, 18 Mar 2012, 9:58 AM | Message # 3 |
 Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 207
Status: Offline
| I'm of the mind that no humanitarian vessel should be armed at all. What about pirates, you ask? That's why escorts were made; escorts who can sit back when the humanitarian vessels go in to do their thing. No humanitarian vessel should be armed; after all, if it is armed, it can enter a conflict under the guise of a humanitarian vessel and turn out to be more, or something more devious. While this bill stands in this form, Lorrd votes against.
Roman Lekpin
Representative, Lorrd (11 BBY-10 BBY) (9 BBY-Present)
Chosen of House Garth
|
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Sunday, 18 Mar 2012, 10:07 AM | Message # 4 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| I support this measure in principle but I object strongly to its persistent use of the speciesist term "humanitarian," a term of Human origin that implies there is something uniquely Human about being compassionate to those in need. And, in some places, the term is understood to mean compassionate to Humanity, not to other species. Mind you, Senators, compared to some species Humans are far more destructive and selfish, so to suggest that we have some compassionate quality that is exceptional to us is also inaccurate. The terms "humane" or "humanitarian" should not be used in this law. Why not "charitable" or "philanthropic"? Something that isn't disparaging to other species. Added (18 Mar 2012, 10:07 AM)
---------------------------------------------
And I agree with Senator Lekpin and I also vote against.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Ordan | Date: Thursday, 22 Mar 2012, 5:35 AM | Message # 5 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 633
Status: Offline
| Fair game I'd say unfortunately. They put themselves in the way of combat vessels then I'm afraid if it's an all-out war (and not just a limited conflict) then they should be stopped and seized or destroyed. Material is material and there is no guarantee these "humanitarian" supplies would not be used to support the war effort.
If planet A was under siege by planet B, and planet A ordered as "humanitarian supplies" to "stave off famine" 1000 tons of Grain this grain could be used to produce Ethanol (a fuel which can be used to propel primative orbital rockets) or further refined to make hydrogen - an element with numerous military applications.
Thus I must vote against as unfortunately it needs to be down to the discretion of forces present whether to allow "humanitarian" aid, but would encourage her to remember the provision in law for the traditional "jus in bello" so that commanders will be measured after the event by these standards if questionable conduct towards civilians is present.
Senator Hubert Ordan
__________________________
Senator of the Azure Sector
Foreign Minister of Anaxes
Captain-General of the Azure Interest Protection Squadron
Deputy Chairman of the Ethics Committee
Worshipful Master of the Most Loyal and Honourable Company of Blockadeers
Archtreasurer of the Vault of Pols Anaxes
Autocrat of Selgon
Owner of Azure Durasteel
Systems Admiral (Ret)
Order of the Canted Circle
|
| |
| |
| Augusta_Aurelius | Date: Monday, 26 Mar 2012, 1:26 AM | Message # 6 |
|
Lieutenant colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 109
Status: Offline
| Escorts can imply a more military nature of the vessel. As is said in the bill, if a humanitarian vessel is to be armed, it should be in a purely defensive manner. In that same section, Article IV, should a humanitarian vessel turn out to be more than such, as you fear Senator Lekpin, then it forfeits the rights and protections of being a humanitarian vessel, despite any previous declaration of intent or markings. While I see no reason for it, Senator Lekpin, what changes would you like to see in this bill to satisfy your concerns?
Senator Vanden, I appreciate your concern for possible offense of non-Human, sentient beings. I believe, however, the standard definition of humanitarian being "an ethic of kindness, benevolence and sympathy extended universally and impartially", with humanitarian aid defined as "material or logistical assistance provided for humanitarian purposes", that the current naming is precise and consistent with what the bill is in relation to. "Charitable" or "philanthropic" would misdirect on the subject matter of the bill, which has a very direct purpose. I am no speciesist, Senator, and I am taken back by the insinuation of such in this debate. Now, if you can find a wording appropriate to the bill, and its intended purpose, that would not seem so offensive, then by all means, do present such a word, and I will consider its incorporation. However, attempting to lessen the legal standing of a bill because someone may be offended by the base-word of a term or word is, for lack of a better word, illogical. Especially when there is no connotation to species contained within the bill or its purpose.
Augusta Aurelius
Queen Conosrt of Deralia
Chair of the Human Rights Monitoring and Crisis Resolution Sub-Committee of the Planetary Defense Committee
Senator of Deralia and the Tammuz Sector (30 BBY - 18 BBY, 10 BBY - Present)
|
| |
| |
| Roman_Lekpin | Date: Monday, 26 Mar 2012, 9:16 AM | Message # 7 |
|
Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 207
Status: Offline
| I realize that under the article any vessels who were armed in such a manner but are more forfeit the protection, but by then the damage is done, and the vessel in question has brought more weapons to a conflict. My question is twofold then: firstly, what determines armament to be 'defensive' and who regulates such armaments and ensures they are properly outfitted? Secondly, would you accept a modification of the following amendment?
The Lekpin Amendment
1) Humanitarian vessels, when used for relief in a combat zone, war zone or other area in which two of more parties are engaged in a combative situation, will not be armed or necessitate armed escorts.
2) Humanitarian vessels, when utilized outside of combat for aid missions, relief, relocation, may be lightly armed for the purposes of defense and transport protection.
Roman Lekpin
Representative, Lorrd (11 BBY-10 BBY) (9 BBY-Present)
Chosen of House Garth
|
| |
| |
| Sate_Pestage | Date: Thursday, 29 Mar 2012, 12:23 PM | Message # 8 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 639
Status: Offline
| I also recommend in addition to Senator Lekpin's amendment that warships should not be temporarily re-purposed as humanitarian ships on the flimsy grounds that their current cargo is humanitarian in nature. It is still a warship and could act as one at any time, and should not be extended protection from other belligerents on humanitarian grounds. It's not clear to me that the bill in its current form would prevent this from happening.
Sate Pestage
Grand Vizier of the Empire
Assistant to Emperor Palpatine
Chair of the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Ilanah_Thanatos | Date: Thursday, 29 Mar 2012, 4:28 PM | Message # 9 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 891
Status: Offline
| Chandrila votes in favor with the proposed amendments in place.
Ilanah R. Thanatos
Senator of Chandrila
|
| |
| |
| Augusta_Aurelius | Date: Friday, 30 Mar 2012, 9:48 PM | Message # 10 |
|
Lieutenant colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 109
Status: Offline
| The amendments have been included. Are there any other comments, suggestions, criticisms?
Augusta Aurelius
Queen Conosrt of Deralia
Chair of the Human Rights Monitoring and Crisis Resolution Sub-Committee of the Planetary Defense Committee
Senator of Deralia and the Tammuz Sector (30 BBY - 18 BBY, 10 BBY - Present)
|
| |
| |
| Avram_Kirkwood | Date: Tuesday, 03 Apr 2012, 8:21 PM | Message # 11 |
 Lieutenant
Group: Users
Messages: 77
Status: Offline
| In Favor
The Honorable Avram W. Kirkwood
Senator of the Cygnus Star Empire
General, Imperial Army (Ret.)
Message edited by Avram_Kirkwood - Tuesday, 03 Apr 2012, 8:22 PM |
| |
| |
| Augusta_Aurelius | Date: Tuesday, 03 Apr 2012, 8:47 PM | Message # 12 |
|
Lieutenant colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 109
Status: Offline
| Senator Lekpin? Do you have a response on the inclusion of your amendment?
Augusta Aurelius
Queen Conosrt of Deralia
Chair of the Human Rights Monitoring and Crisis Resolution Sub-Committee of the Planetary Defense Committee
Senator of Deralia and the Tammuz Sector (30 BBY - 18 BBY, 10 BBY - Present)
|
| |
| |
| Roman_Lekpin | Date: Wednesday, 04 Apr 2012, 2:52 AM | Message # 13 |
|
Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 207
Status: Offline
| Nothing further, Senator. I am in favor.
Roman Lekpin
Representative, Lorrd (11 BBY-10 BBY) (9 BBY-Present)
Chosen of House Garth
|
| |
| |
| Exar_Ray | Date: Wednesday, 04 Apr 2012, 4:05 PM | Message # 14 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 353
Status: Offline
| Dantooine voices it's approval for this. I vote in favor, naturally.
|
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Wednesday, 04 Apr 2012, 8:09 PM | Message # 15 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| I can understand that the word "eleemosynary" doesn't have the simplicity that is probably needed for this law to be commonly understood, but if we're going to enshrine the species-biased word "humanitarian" into law to the point we're making an "H" the interstellar symbol of these vessels (as if to say "This is a Human ship, don't you touch it"), the least we can do is include an amendment that clarifies the law's use of the word is not intended to suggest that charity and compassion are unique to Humans, or that non-Human species have inferior morality. I have to remain against this until such an amendment is included.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
Message edited by Artemis_Vanden - Wednesday, 04 Apr 2012, 8:11 PM |
| |
| |
|
