Here is a new one. This one was proposed six times before it finally strung together enough approvals to make it to voting stage. (It narrowly fell short the other five times).

As per usual, I'll be voting based on the poll results.

Feel free to post your thoughts in this thread.

The onsite vote is going until March 8, I'll cast my vote on the evening of March 7.

--
Children or War

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

Noting with regret that thousands of children continue to be abducted to serve as soldiers, spies, messengers, servants and sexual slaves with armed forces and groups,

Realizing that poverty, propaganda and ideology also continue to drive the involvement of children in many conflict areas,

Deeply disturbed by the idea that children make obedient and cheap soldiers capable of instilling terror in civilians and opposing forces alike,

Observing that many of these children are generally poor, illiterate, and from rural regions,

Bearing in mind that many nations have a difficult time in protecting these children,

Convinced that the social and economic viability of the future of all nations lies in the humane treatment of children in general,

1. Bans the practise of conscripting or placing children under 16 years of age into national armed services;
2. Insists nations address the causes of child abduction by non-governmental organizations;
3. Emphasizes the need for nations to prevent cross-border abduction and human trafficking;
4. All parties in armed conflict must adopt special measures to protect children from rape and sexual abuse and gender based violence;
5. Expects nations to take into account the special needs of children throughout the duration of the armed conflict and its aftermath;
6. All UN nations must ensure that international measures be taken to take care of child refugees displaced by conflict;
7. Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places that have a significant presence of children, such as schools, hospitals, and day care facilities;
8. Deplores and bans the practice of using children as human shields by integrating child care facilities, such as those listed above, with military facilities, and prohibits this practise; and
9. Acknowledges the right of nations to set up military academies and to teach children basic survival and defense skills

Urghh... I remember this from... I've forgotten now...
I won't pick up on the few grammer (just checking...), mistakes as those are a minor irrelevance.
How would this be enforced. I mean a Social Worker attatched to each army base, and Field Command Post? Each Unit? Each squad?
Help?

However...

6. All UN nations must ensure that international measures be taken to take care of child refugees displaced by conflict;
7. Condemns and bans attacks of any sort on places that have a significant presence of children, such as schools, hospitals, and day care facilities;

I do like this though. In my opinion, this has potential. I just can't figure it out at the moment though.

Point 9. has me confused. Okay, your decrying the use of child-soldiers, but are prepared to teach them how to defend themselves. I'm sorry: Teaching an eight year old how to defend themselves against trained soldiers, if this is taken in context, wouldn't that be just as a bigger problem?
If executed conrrectly, I also think brainwahsing. :huh:

I agree, it doesn't make sense to ban the use of children but then authorize to teach them.

It doesn't really make sense I've just realised. Tho whole argument is almost cohesive and then almost deliberately contradicts itself in the nature.
If you were to remove the teaching aspect (point 9), I think it could almost make some sense. It would need a large amount of elbow grease and Brasso, but some polish could make it viable. I don't actually think it will go very far, but that's just me.
It is, however, a bold attempt to tackle such a contraversial topic.

Like on Simpsons when Bart goes to military school. They teach him how to fight and use weapons as well as discipline.

Homer: (nervous) "Did you make sure to return all the guns, boy?"

Bart: (crisply) "Sir! Yes, sir! Fortunatly I am now trained in 26 additional forms of unarmed combat, sir!

I, however, support this one. Kids today are out of friggin' control and the best thing for them is the discipline the parents don't provide. So I have no problem with Point 9.

-Dunefish

I agree about the lack of discipline completely. It just that from an intellectual perpective it shoots itself in the foot.
I will probably abstain from voting in this, or forget about it.

Yes, all that military education really helped turn John Lee Malvo into a splendid human being...

(I'm not saying that military acadamies shouldn't be allowed - quite the contrary - however , I don't necessarily equate military acadamies, or military service as a cure to society's ills).

Not a complete cure, no. But you have to remember that the other guy screwed him up some too, and that they were both a little "off" to begin with.

-Dunefish

I'd go further. Pawning your kids off to an institution to learn "discipline" is no solution at all. Parents should be doing this themselves. Responsibility for this shouldn't be passed off to others.

Mind you, this is outside the scope of the resolution. All it says is that the option should remain open, which I agree with.

I don't agree entirely with what y ou are saying.

Being a cadet, then a reservist in my youth, I can tell you that the canadian millitary has helped alot of disturbed youth become great men.

It's not all about giving you the skills to defend yourself, it is learning to respect something bigger than yourself, working as a team, discipline, self confidence and even bigger: the love of the person next to you.

I think the issue the UN brought up has been well presented and my votes goes to yes.

Initially I felt that I would vote against the proposal, however I am beginning to change my mind. I felt the last clause was contradictory which it still is. However it just remains an option for the nation to train children but not necessarily for war.

I can tell you that the canadian millitary has helped...

Perhaps not all Regions are fortunate enough to have such a Military Darkseeker. Some, more unscrupulous Regions may use this to their advantage. As Grand Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing), once aptly said:

"Fear will keep them in line."

I don't disagree that it isn't a well thought out submission, I just can't envisage a how such legislation would be enforced. I will probably end up voting, although I am yet undecided as to how I will vote.

Although article 9 says "military academies", it could just as easily be talking about the Boy Scouts. Of course, Baden-Powell might have said that that's a distinction without a difference. But, I disagree.

A non-combatant institution that teaches survival skills, and possibly even defense skills, to children is not the same thing as a child military. If I may belabour the point, the difference lies in whether the children are being trained to be present combatants, instead of potential future combatants. Or, just future survivors, for that matter.

My problem with this resolution is not with article 9. It is with the word "special" -- "special means", "special needs". What, precisely, does that mean? What is the standard to determine whether or not a nation is in compliance?

Taking article 4 as a specific case, is it enough to have a standing order that combatants must not rape children? That they must prevent children from being raped, where possible? Or, is it required that they seek out any possibility of child rape, and prevent it? For the record, I'd support the first two of those interpretations, but not the third.

I won't buy a pig in a poke, so based on the Drunken Hoser standing policy of voting no to anything we can't completely support, that's what we're doing.

As an aside, I agree with Bweezy that it is somewhat irresponsible for parents to pawn off any aspect of their children's education off onto institutions. However, not all parents are created equal. It is in our collective interest to provide institutions that can pick up where parents are either incapable, unmotivated, or unskilled. Furthermore, diversity of exposure has its own merit. Some children deserve to grow up differently from their parents, even if said parents don't want them to. (I say this with some trepidation, because I recognize it to be a dangerous argument.)

Taking article 4 as a specific case, is it enough to have a standing order that combatants must not rape children. That they must prevent children from being raped, where possible? Or, is it required that they seek out any possibility of child rape, and prevent it?

That's what also had me confused.

I agree with your last point, but wouldn't go so far as to say it's a dangerous argument, just a natural course of parentage. Every parent should be aware that their children may not be what their parents want them to be.

The resolution "Children in War" was passed, 15753 votes to 2582, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Based on the above 12-5 vote, I cast the 60 delegate votes in favour of the proposed resolution. Thanks to all who took the time to vote.