The GSRWH Treaty Convention (Space Geneva)

[mizolo]

This is by NO MEANS official, I'm just toying with an idea, perhaps modifying it, and other such.
If you feel this needs to be revised, tell me.
Admins/Staff, if you really want this to be the current RP / actual in-game rules for human warfare, so be it, you can use it. It's fine by me.


Galactic Space Rules of Warfare for Humanity Treaty and Convention
As of 2100, the human society has far out-grown the rules of the normal Geneva Convention. As such, we the people of humanity, draft a new resolution.
The judges of this committee will be proportional upon trails given to those accused as deemed by the Head GSRWH Enforcer, who has been selected and agreed upon by all signing members of this document.
We understand, however, that not all parties, organizations, and militaries have signed this document, but are still under it's enforcement and law.



Article I: The definitions of combatants, non-combatants, and POW's


Section I:
A 'combatant' is defined as a person that is actively and/or currently employed in any sort of military, militia, armed group, or even terrorist organization.
In order to be considered a 'threatening combatant', the combatant must:
1: Must have a weapon on their person at the time of contact
2: Must not be incapacitated to the point of being unable to fight back unless previously able to fight back with a 30-second rule.


Section II:
A non-combatant is defined as a person that can fit any one of these protocols:
1: A civilian
2: A child of age less than or equal to 13


Section III:
A POW is defined as a person that:
1: Used to be a combatant
2: Has been stripped of all weapons and gear
3: Is being held by an occupying force, group, or military



Article II: The difference between a non-combatant, an SD non-combatant, and an H non-combatant


Section I:
A non-combatant is defined in Article I, section II. However, should a non-combatant pick up a weapon such as a fire-arm or even a simple knife or blade, they are then considered to be a SD non-combatant.


Section II:
Should an SD non-combatant use deadly or harming force, against a combatant, threatening or not, they are then considered to be an H non-combatant.
H non-combatants are considered to be treated with the same force as would a normal combatant.

Addendum II-A:
H non-combatants are currently considered to be on the same level as a threatening combatant. This may, however, change in the near future.



Article III: Rules of Engagement, Surrendering, and mistakes


Section I: Universal Rules of Engagement

A threatening combatant may:
Harm another threatening combatant
Harm a target deemed a threat to the survival of the individual
Give a warning to an SD non-combatant to surrender and give them enough time to do so

A threatening combatant may not:
Harm a non-combatant, or an SD non-combatant without warning
Use a form of gas as a tool or means to harm anybody.
Use a non-combatant, an SD non-combatant, or a POW as a means to prevent harm to themselves (also known as meat-shielding).
Torture, Brutalize, Maim, or otherwise de-humanize an individual under the current humanitarian definitions.

An SD non-combatant may:
Defend themselves
Defend other civilians or non-combatants

An SD non-combatant may not:
Deliberately seek out or harm anybody.
See Article II, Addendum II-A for becoming an H non-combatant


Section II: Surrender

A surrender is defined as any person making themselves vulnerable to the enemy by:
1: Disarming any and all weapons they have by throwing them on the ground and out of reach by the surrendee
2: Showing both hands in the air (in the case of de-limbing, any and all hands left)
3: Laying down on the ground, face down

A person may surrender at any time for any reason. Everyone is not allowed to harm or kill a surrendee.
A surrendee may only be punished for insubordination.


Section III: Mistakes

A mistake is classified only as a person mistaking the identity of a person. Whether it be a non-combatant for a threatening combatant, or vice-versa.
If a mistake occurs, then the offender must do everything in their power of the moment to make sure that the victim is cared for and damages restored or repaid. We, the people of humanity, realize that everyone makes identity mistakes, and will happen often.



Article IV: Breaches of code & punishments


Section I: What defines a breach of code

A breach of code is defined as an action, deliberate or not, that breaks a section or rule in one of the above Articles I-III. It can also be classified as a mistake if the mistake is not handled properly.


Section II: How a trail works

A suspect has the right to represent his or her self in the trail.
The defendant does not have to present evidence if there is no evidence pitted against him or her.
A suspect has the right to trail by jury.
A suspect has the right to be innocent until proven guilty.
A suspect must be given enough time to get to the trail.
A suspect does not have the right to ignore, resist, or delay a trail in any way.
A suspect does not have a final say, or influence, in a judge's final decision of punishment.


Section III: Punishments categories

The current tiers of punishment are:
0: Kill at almost any cost with no regards to any article or section. (This is to be used only in very extreme cases.)
I: Death
II: Life in prison, with a choice of being a test subject for life on various appropriate conditions. (e.g: a new experimental drug that has passed monkey testing)
III: non-life sentence of prison, with time according to the judge's appropriate decision
IV: A mark on the suspect's record of violating a code in a minor degree. Used for reference in case of repeated offenses.


Section IV: The Definitions of Runaways and War Criminals

A runaway is defined as a suspect that has not showed up, delayed, or resisted confronting a trail of him or her.
A War Criminal is defined as someone who deliberately, and purposefully, with full knowledge of consequences, dis-obeyed and commenced a breach of code.


Section V: How to deal with Runaways and War Criminals

A runaway must not resist arrest when confronted, and is given a Tier III punishment in addition to the original crime.
If a Runaway resists arrest when confronted in any way, a Tier II punishment is automatically added to the original crime.
If a Runaway lethally resists arrest, they are then considered a War Criminal.
If a War Criminal complies to arrest without resistance, he is to be considered a , and has a Tier I punishment on their head.
If a War Criminal resists arrest, or continues to commence breaches of code, they revoke their own rights, and are considered a Tier 0 threat to humanity, and is to be eliminated at almost any cost.


Section VI: Aiding and Abetting Conspirators

If a person conspires with a Runaway or War Criminal, they will receive one tier lower than the accused.


Section VII: Claim of this section

Any person may claim this section in order to avoid or refuse an order by anybody on any level to safely avoid a breach of code without fear of punishment from commanders or leaders superior to the
The purpose of this section is given VIA an example below:
Say a commanding officer, or a commander, gives the order to a combatant to shoot civilians, a POW, or surrendered combatant. This breaches almost all of Article III.
The combatant receiving the order, may claim this section. Or order 4-7 for short, as given this is Article IV, Section VII.
However, should it be proven to have breached a code, then the combatant must be treated only as an insubordinate marine for that occasion only.



Amendments: None Currently



Signatures:

USCM Grand Admiral Victor
UPP Secretary of War Rickhtol (On behalf of the UPP President Shkikler)
President of the United States of America Henry B. Smith
GSRWH Committee Chairman Raphael
GSRWH Head Judge Kendrick

[mizolo]

This is a work in progress.

Give feedback as necessary.

[kastion]

That name. lol. That's all the feedback I got.

[Dorkkeli]

/me *dabs

[Avalanchee]

Does anyone have spare WP nades?

[CABAL]

Cool, but I don't see anything about treating corpses and such. Decapitation after death, husking, delimbing, etc.

CLF being a terrorist organisation shouldn't get "special" this treatment anyway. Both sides have to sign under this "Space Geneva". I guess CLF is decentralised with no real "leader", so it can't be signed.

Instead, USCM should be instructed how surrendering looks like, ordered to avoid civilian casualities by cuffing everyone who surrended and/or is unarmed, becouse every potential colonist in the region of CLF operations might be their operative.
Even that might be risky, since terrorists might not care about their live, fake and kill themselfs in glorious explosion which is "reasonable" for extremists fighting for freedom.

This would apply only to USCM vs UPP conflicts. PMC's, Freelancers and CLF seems to be free game.

[kooarbiter]

"use of gas as a tool is forbidden"

gosh darn it no more propane barbeques

[MikeHdez97]

I like your idea but you could think a better name. I hope this idea comes into the lore for the game

[Dolth]

Well since a marine with a kill reason will execute another marine even if he surrenders by saying so, standing still ans throwing his gun away...

That stuff is fun but can't be applied even by an inch.

[mizolo]

Updated the rules to include Article IV, the claim of 4-7, and the signatures of 5 major leaders

[mizolo]

Updated Grammar and other such.

Please provide feedback or suggestions.

[Bancrose]

[Dolth]

Aren't we the one with napalm and blue flames?

[Weaselburg]

Techniclly only humans can be combatents so I can still make mustard gas and go WW1 on the benomorphs/preds. Preds don't count either, they never signed and are not humans.

[mizolo]

Techniclly only humans can be combatents so I can still make mustard gas and go WW1 on the benomorphs/preds. Preds don't count either, they never signed and are not humans.

PRECISELY, but keep in mind, this is only for HvH events and such, as well as just for RP purposes.

[Rikman]

At the end of the round, I, The pyro spec maaybee burned the ERT to death AFTER they shot me. Would this land me in space court?

[mizolo]

At the end of the round, I, The pyro spec maaybee burned the ERT to death AFTER they shot me. Would this land me in space court?

ummmm, if the ERT was a 'bad' one like UPP or CLF, NO.

Also, technically it wouldn't matter because it was after THEY shot YOU FIRST, so even if you were a civilian, you could've fired back. Also, that's completely fair game of the case of a Threatening-combatant harming a Threatening-combatant.

[Weaselburg]

At the end of the round, I, The pyro spec maaybee burned the ERT to death AFTER they shot me. Would this land me in space court?

Well, lighting things on fire is a time honored tradition. And they shot first.

[Garrison]

Looks like I'm not the only one thinking about this. I posted such an idea on Gitlab to put this in as a Wiki article to establish what could be considered a war crime. However, mine was far more abstract compared to what you put up on here.

https://gitlab.com/cmdevs/ColonialMarines/issues/5367


There was one instance from the modern Geneva convention that made me think of CM and inspire me to submit that idea. When I heard that it was considered a war crime to shoot a medic that is wearing clear insignia identifying them as such. However, should the medic discharge their firearm, they stop being classified as a Medic. Thus, can be legally fired upon.

Course, I wouldn't want to bring the whole convention into the game. But I would like to see a sort of "Honorable Conduct" that can be performed during both hostile and passive interactions while fighting or playing as UPP, PMC/Freelancer or even rebellious USCM Squads.

In my opinion, the CLF is not considered a professional army, and are not bound to, nor would even care about such a treaty.

[FGRSentinel]

A few important things to note about the Geneva Conventions:

1. Every modern nation has signed and abides by the Geneva Conventions as they're considered a core part of international law. Why is this important? This means that all the component states of the United Americas have signed the Conventions and the USCM would be obligated to uphold the Conventions if they exist in CM. As they're considered a customary part of International Law, it would also be safe to assume that the UPP would have signed the Conventions (or their CM equivalent) as well, meaning protection goes both ways.

2. The Conventions demand that minimal rules of war apply to armed conflicts "where at least one party is not a State." What this means is that the CLF would be given similar protections under the Conventions... So long as they also upheld the minimal rules of war required by the Conventions. What these "minimal rules of war" are, however, is a bit vague so I'll leave that out unless someone asks. The general idea, however, if we apply Article 2 of the Third Convention, is that so long as the CLF respect and adhere to the standards of the Conventions, the USCM is obligated to uphold the standards as well.

3. What are the Conventions? They're four treaties (and three Protocols, but the United States is only a party for the four Conventions and Protocol III, which isn't worth mentioning for this) that focus mostly on protecting those "who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities," mostly sick, wounded, prisoners of war, civilians, and potentially medical personnel. The First and Second Conventions protect wounded/sick servicemen (as well as religious and medical personnel) at land and sea respectively. The Third Convention dictates treatment of prisoners of war. The Fourth is related to the treatment of civilians.

4. What protections are provided under the Conventions? For the First and Second, wounded from both sides are to be humanely treated (no killing, torturing, or injuring of wounded); shipwrecked personnel are to be saved by any means (for the Second); that medical facilities, personnel, transports, and the Protective Symbol (Red Cross, Red Sickle, or Red Diamond) are respected and protected (ie, no attacking medics or doctors, destroying hospitals, Medbay, medical equipment, or hijacking hospital ships). These conventions also obligate both sides to collect and treat wounded regardless of which side they're from and that if they come across dead from the opposing side, they identify the dead and relay that information to their enemy. (Ie, if the UPP found Katashi Juro or another Marine dead, they have to inform the Marines about this if the Geneva Conventions existed in CM) The Third and Fourth Conventions are more complicated and annoying to summarize, so I'll leave those out unless someone requests them.


What does the above mean? Quite a bit actually. Under the Conventions, in a HvH scenario, attacking and killing Medics that aren't actively engaging in hostilities would be a serious taboo, while attacking the Doctors on Almayer would be a serious war crime. Medics and Doctors on both sides would be obligated to treat wounded enemy combatants with the same priority as friendly personnel while killing/injuring/deliberately preventing the revival or treatment of enemies would most likely be a serious breach of the Conventions. Exchanges of prisoners/dead would most likely be a thing that'd have to be respected as well in some form or another. In a battle between the UPP and USCM, if the Commanding Officer of a side is made aware that one of their personnel violated the Conventions, they would be obligated to punish the person responsible or potentially be held equally guilty for the breach. In the event of a battle between the USCM and the CLF, the previous statement still applies as long as the CLF don't breach the Conventions. The moment they do so, the USCM are no longer obligated to comply with the Geneva Conventions at all, which means that, ironically, the CLF benefits more from avoiding any breaches than the USCM or UPP does. Apparently, under the Conventions it's acceptable to wear the uniform of the opposing side so long as you don't do so to attack them or take hostages. Lastly, and possibly most ironic of all, the CL has the second most protection under the Conventions of anyone on the Almayer after the Medical staff (who are both civilians and, as medical personnel, are under the protection provided by the Red Cross symbol) so long as he/she doesn't draw a gun on anyone that's not trying to take them prisoner/hostage.

As you can see from that last paragraph, HvH with the Conventions or a replacement would be complicated and kind of annoying to deal with at first, but could add a large number of roleplay possibilities to the game.