SUBMISSION TO SWISS FEDERAL COUNCIL1 RE: GENEVA

CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF

PRISONERS OF WAR, ITO ARTICLES 142 & 143.

Submission by Lara Bosman Johnstone, member of the Radical Honoursty culture, and South African Jus Sanguinis descendant of ‘Totalitarian Agriculture Scarcity Combatant Parties to Conflict’ citizens from France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. On behalf of Francisco Martin (aka Gen. Patton); Nanette Derenzi; Dennis McGinn; Timothy McVeigh; Erik Prince; Vladimir Putin; David Petraeus; Ray ODierno; Stan McChrystal and John Mulholland

Applicants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )))) )

03-14 December 2013 Æquilibriæx jurisprudence Military Necessity denouncement and recommendations for amendment of “Parties to the Conflict” and “Prisoner of War” definitions, respectively to “Scarcity Combatant Parties to the Conflict” and “Political Prisoner of Sex and War”; as detailed in Geneva

Convention relative to the Treatment of

Prisoners of War2, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; in terms of Articles 142 and 143; and (b) Recommendations: Honourable ‘In Your Face’ Public Population and Consumption Reduction Campaigns..

“The seventh principle of humanitarian action in armed conflict says: “Contextualization: Effective humanitarian action should

encompass a comprehensive view of overall needs and of the impact

of interventions. Encouraging respect for human rights and

addressing the underlying causes of conflicts are essential

elements.” - Dec 1994: Dept of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations.

[1] Military Necessity notification to Swiss Federal Council argues in support of:

[1.1] Æquilibriæx jurisprudence denouncement and recommendations for

amendment of “Parties to the Conflict” and “Prisoner of War” definitions,

respectively to “Scarcity Combatant Parties to the Conflict” and “Political Prisoner

of Sex and War”; as detailed in Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of

Prisoners of War3, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; in terms of

Article 1424 and 1435 [Signatories6].

1 http://www.admin.ch/br/org/index.html?lang=en (info@bk.admin.ch) 2 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/305?OpenDocument 3 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/305?OpenDocument 4 Article 142: Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention. The denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Swiss Federal Council, which shall transmit it to the Governments of all the High Contracting Parties. The denunciation shall take effect one year after the notification thereof has been

2

[1.2] The general argument of this submission argues on behalf of the

Ecological Overshoot Scarcity Conflict Sustainable Security Military Necessity that

all Eco and Ego logically Illiterate International Treaty’s addressing war or peace issues, which do not address the underlying ecological overshoot and civilized

patriarchy root causes of conflict; should be deemed fraudulent and hence null and

void; or appropriately amended.

[1.3] Recommendations Overview:

A. Disclose the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS, as a ‘Shock & Awe’ Wake Up Call to World’s Breeding War Citizens of the relationship between Sex and War.

B. Implement Shibumi-Task Force MN-737, as a Military Necessity ‘Scarcity Combatant Cheater Assassination’ Wake Up Call to Consumption War Oligarchs of the relationship between Consumption and War; to Tragedy

of the Commons coercively stimulate their collective demand for the

implantation of Æquilibriæx international jurisprudence.

[1.4] The submission also raises novel ‘Masculinity, Honour, Sex and War’ questions which Applicants consider crucial for the future credibility of whether the

legacy of Western Civilisation's Anthropocentric conceptualization of the rule of law

and principles of legality will culminate in (a) the mob 'rule of men' insistence to

perpetuate the Masculine Insecurity Control of Reproduction and Consumption

Human Farming7 War Economy Legal Matrix; or (b) the 'rule of law' courage to

confront ecological literacy – Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the

Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project8 (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) which argues – like

ecology – that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for maintaining

consumption and procreation below carrying capacity limits is a sine qua non for all

other constitutional rights – with honour, wisdom, and grace. [For more on

made to the Swiss Federal Council. However, a denunciation of which notification has been made at a time when the denouncing Power is involved in a conflict shall not take effect until peace has been concluded, and until after operations connected with the release and repatriation of the persons protected by the present Convention have been terminated. The denunciation shall have effect only in respect of the denouncing Power. It shall in no way impair the obligations which the Parties to the conflict shall remain bound to fulfil by virtue of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience. 5 Article 143: The Swiss Federal Council shall register the present Convention with the Secretariat of the United Nations. The Swiss Federal Council shall also inform the Secretariat of the United Nations of all ratifications, accessions and denunciations received by it with respect to the present Convention. 6 http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp? xp_viewStates=XPages_NORMStatesParties&xp_treatySelected=305 7 Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement: http://youtu.be/gHAnrXCvavc 8 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7383.pdf

3

Civilized Patriarchy’s Indulgence Legal Matrix, see Amicus submissions to

USCAAF: US v Bradley Manning9; US-VA: US v Edward Snowden10; DE-Bavaria:

Germany v Beate Zschape11; UK-Old Bailey: UK v Michael Adebolajo and Michael

Adebowale12; ZA: HPCSA v Wouter Basson13; US-NY: ACLU v Clapper et al14; US-

CA: First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles et al v National Security Agency, et al.]

Applicants:

[2] Applicants Lara Johnstone, Nanette Derenzi; Dennis McGinn; Timothy

McVeigh; Erik Prince; Vladimir Putin; David Petraeus; Ray ODierno; Stan

McChrystal and John Mulholland are applicant parties in the George Magistrates

Court, South Africa: Johnstone et al v Blanton et al: Case 4643-13. Among others

the case involves negotiation of the MISO 528 004, MI6GASM project, a

Masculinity, Honour, Sex and War project to help Yuri, Alexi and Jack crashland

the End of Industrial Civilization (END:CIV15), as honourably as possible.

[3] Vice Admiral Nanette M. "Nan" DeRenzi16 is the current and 42nd Judge

Advocate General (JAG) of the United States Navy. [See Declaration17 of JAG Lt.

Cdr. Lara Braveheart, to US Navy Judge Advocate General: Vice Admiral Nanette

Derenzi].

[4] Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn18 served in the U.S. Navy for 35 years

culminating as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and

Programs at the Pentagon. On 9 July 2013, Vice Admiral McGinn was nominated

by President Obama to lead Navy Energy Efforts19. [See MILINT Earth Day

Ecology of Peace Whistleblower/Activist Oath (PDF20)] McGinn was member of

the CNA Military Advisory Board for the 2007 CNA report titled, “National

Security and the Threat of Climate Change21,” which lays out the ways in which

climate change is a “threat multiplier” around the globe; and the 2009 report

9 http://sqswans.weebly.com/us-court-of-appeals-for-armed-forces.html 10 http://tygae.weebly.com/united-states.html 11 http://tygae.weebly.com/germany.html 12 http://tygae.weebly.com/united-kingdom.html 13 http://tygae.weebly.com/south-africa.html 14 http://tygae.weebly.com/united-states.html 15 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hx-G1uhRqA 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanette_M._DeRenzi 17 http://issuu.com/tygae/docs/13-08-05_jag_07-146_jag_vadm-n-dere 18 http://www.acore.org/about/governance/acore-staff/36-uncategorized-pages28/203-2vice-admiral-dennis-v-mcginn-usn-ret 19 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/09/2270861/president-obama-nominates-ret-admiral-mcginn-to-lead-navy-energy-efforts/ 20 http://tygae.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-06-18_snowden-greenwald_milintedaywhistleblowing_cert.pdf 21 http://www.cna.org/reports/climate

4

“Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security22”; which included a Military Appeal to American citizens to make sacrifices similar to those

made by the American people made during World War II, by planting victory

gardens, cutting down on fuel use, saving scrap metal and old rubber, sacrifices, or

maybe just examples of common sense and prudent lifestyle changes.

[5] Timothy James McVeigh (born April 23, 1968), was a military special

forces double agent, acting as an American domestic terrorist, in terms of his

political handlers geopolitical military objectives to politically profit from

aggravating the left/right ‘strategy of tension’ ‘sex and war’ economy. Among other accomplices, he detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal

Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people and injuring over

600. As instructed, McVeigh took sole responsibility, was convicted of eleven federal

offenses and sentenced to death, which he was told would be faked. His faked

execution occurred on June 11, 2001, at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre

Haute, Indiana. He currently works for the National Security Agency (NSA).

[6] Erik Dean Prince (born June 6, 1969) is an American businessman and

former U.S. Navy SEAL, best known for founding the world's largest private

military company, Blackwater USA, in 1997. He served as its CEO until 2009 and

later as chairman until Blackwater Worldwide was sold in 2010 to a group of

investors. Prince currently lives in the United Arab Emirates.

[7] Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (born 7 October 1952) is the President of

Russia, a position he has held since 7 May 2012. He previously served as President

from 2000 to 2008, and as Prime Minister of Russia from 1999 to 2000 and again

from 2008 to 2012. During that last stint (2008 to 2012) he was also the Chairman

of the United Russia political party. For sixteen years Putin served as an officer in

the KGB, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before he retired to enter politics

in his native Saint Petersburg in 1991. [See: Declaration of FSB Lt. Cdr. Felix

Starinov Bochkareva, to Lt. General Vladimir G Kulishov, Head of Border Guard

Service, Vice Director of FSB of Russia; CC: President Putin, Kremlin: FSB: Cheka

Border Guards Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace

campaign. (PDF)]

[8] David Howell Petraeus (born November 7, 1952) is a retired American

military officer and public official. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence

Agency from September 6, 2011, until his resignation on November 9, 2012. Prior to

22 http://www.cna.org/reports/energy

5

his assuming the directorship of the CIA, Petraeus was a highly decorated four-star

general, serving over 37 years in the United States Army. His last assignments in

the Army were as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)

and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) from July 4, 2010, to July

18, 2011. [See: Ecology of Peace Maria Bochkareva Leaver Peacenik One Child

Oath (PDF23)]

[9] Raymond T. "Ray" Odierno (born September 8, 1954) is a United States

Army general and the 38th and current Chief of Staff of the Army. Odierno most

recently commanded United States Joint Forces Command from October 2010 until

its disestablishment in August 2011. He served as Commanding General, United

States Forces – Iraq and its predecessor, Multi-National Force – Iraq, from

September 2008 through September 2010. Prior to that, he served as Commanding

General, III Corps, from May 2006 to May 2008.

[10] Stanley Allen McChrystal (born August 14, 1954) is a retired United

States Army General. His last assignment was as Commander, International

Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan

(USFOR-A). He previously served as Director, Joint Staff from August 2008 to June

2009 and as Commander, Joint Special Operations Command from 2003 to 2008.

McChrystal was reportedly known for saying and thinking what other military

leaders were afraid to; this was one of the reasons cited for his appointment to lead

all forces in Afghanistan.

[11] Lieutenant General John F. Mulholland, Jr. (born c. 1955) is the current

Deputy Commander of United States Special Operations Command.

[12] Lara Johnstone has political motivated criminal convictions for

Terrorism24; Malicious Damage to State Property25: and Contempt in Facie Curiae.

Her European ‘Totalitarian Agriculture Scarcity Combatant Parties to Conflict’ Progenitor citizens from France26, Germany27, Netherlands28, Norway29 and the

23 http://sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-10-15_uscaaf_petition_reconsideration_rule31_mblpoath_signedcrtsvc.pdf 24 On 18 June 2002 (Phi Day and President Mbeki’s 60th birthday) she made a bomb threat to the P.W. Botha International airport in George and then turned herself into the Police, based upon the political necessity of exposing SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud (particularly the relationship between overpopulation and terrorism and the media’s coverup of overpopulation-environment-terrorism connections). She was sentenced to two years correctional supervision. 25 She broke about half a dozen windows in George Women’s prison and set the prison on fire on 19 April 2003, when Prison authorities refused to recognize her hungerstrike. 26 FR: DELPORTE, Jacques & VITOUT, Sara: Jacques DELPORTE was born about 1680 near Rijswijk (Lille) in Flandre, France. Sara VITOUT was born about 1681 in Guines, Picardie, France . They married in January 1698 in Veere, Europa. His name is also spelt as La Porte. He is from Ryssel (Lille) and he marries Sara VITOUT in October 1698 and three months later, on 10 Dec. 1698 they leave the Netherlands on the ship Cattendyk, as French Huguenots. They arrive in Capetown on 13 April 1699. || FR: DE VILLIERS, Abraham & GARDIOL, Susanne: DE

6

United Kingdom30 travelled to South Africa as a means to escape the resource

scarcity and ideological and religious conflict consequences of Totalitarian

Agriculture breeding and consumption war practices; occurring in Europe at the

time; as economic, religious and military cannon fodder on behalf of European

VILLIERS, Abraham was born in Bar-sur-Seine, Bourgogne, France in 1659, and married Susanne GARDIOL (1668), daughter of Antoine GARDIOL and Margueritte PERROTETTE, from La Coste, Provence on 05 October 1689 in the Cape. Abraham and his two brothers Jacques (Jacob) DE VILLIERS (1661) and Pierre DE VILLIERS were from La Rochelle - although it has been argued they were originally from Bourgogne and fled to La Rochelle - were French Huguenots who left France in 1689 on the Zion. Jacob married Marguerite GARDIOL and Abraham her sister Susanna GARDIOL. Abraham and Susanne lived at Meerust, Drakenstein. Susanne GARDIOL arrived at the Cape in January 1689, with her mother and sister Margueritte and brother Jean on the Wapen van Alkmaar, having left Amsterdam on 18 July 1688. Susanne GARDIOL is a descendant of the GARDIOL families from Luberon; who settled in Luberon at the end of the 15th century; of the Vaud clan, who came from the alpine valleys of Piedmont (Theses of Gabriel AUDISIO, published in 1984 : "The of Vaud ones of Luberon - a minority in Provence"). || FR: DE VILLIERS, Jacques (Jacob) & GARDIOL, Marguerite: DE VILLIERS Jacques (Jacob) was born approximately 1661 at La Rochelle, where they had fled to from Burgundy. In 1689 he and his brothers Abraham and Pierre arrived in the Cape on Zion. Jacob married Marguerite GARDIOL, from Provence. He established himself at La Brie, Franschoek, and later Boschendal. || FR: JACOBS, Pierre & DE VOS, Susanna: JACOBS, Pierre from Calais was a French Huguenot who arrived in the Cape in 1688 on De Schelde wit his wife Suzanna DE VOS, and three children, Daniel, Sara and Suzanne. They settled on De Goede Hoop (1688), Groot Drakenstein. He died in 1693. || FR: MARE, Ignace & VAN VUUREN, Susanna: Ignace Mare was born about 1684 in Calabria France; although some sources allege otherwise. It is alleged he was christened in Ardennes, Montherme, France in 1686; and that he was the second son of Paul Mare, some also consider him a possible Huguenot. On 07 February 1706, in Drakenstein, he married Susanna van Vuuren (born 1691) in Calais, France. Susanna was the daughter of Gerrit J. van Vuuren (1660, Netherlands - 1700, Cape) and Susanna Jacobs (1671, Calais France - 1696, Cape). || DE: ROOS, Johannes (Hans): ROOS Johannes (Hans) was born 10 May 1677 in Leipzig, Germany and came to South Africa from Leipzig, East Germany. He was the son of Johannes ROSE, a linen merchant and Anna BLUMEN. Johannes was a mason 1713-1715. In 1715 he became a burger and a black smith. On 19 May 1715 (some say 1714) he married Johanna VISSER who was baptised on 5 March 1690 - the daughter of Johannes VISSERr and Catharine VAN DER ZEE - an orphan from the Netherlands. Johannes and Johanna had 10 children. On 9 December 1746 Johanna married Lucas VISAGIE. She died about 1755. (de Villiers and Pama, Genealogies of old S A Families 1981) 27 DE: HAMMES, Pieter Caspar: HAMMES, Pieter Caspar -- son of Friedrich HAMMES and Anna Margaretha FALKENRATH -- was born in Remsheid, North Rhinde-Westphalia and arrived in the Cape in 1753 as a soldier. He married Maria Magdalena DELPORT on 31 July 1763 in the Cape. She was the daughter of Pieter DELPORT and Anna Elizabeth MARE (b: 04.01.1710, Drakenstein). He died on 20 May 1772 in the Cape. || 28 NL: BOSMAN Hermanus: Hermanus BOSMAN was born on 19 April 1682 in Amsterdam, and left Holland, from Texel on 20 January 1706 destined for Batavia. He did not like the Far East, so returned on the De Overryp, arriving in the Cape on 19 April 1707, where he as appointed Pastor of Drakenstein. He married Elizabeth DE VILLIERS (daughter of Abraham DE VILLIERS & Suzane GARDIOL) on 04 March 1708. They established themselves on De Nieuwe Plantatie. || NL: KOLVER, Andreas Lutgerus: KOLVER, Andreas (Andries) Lutgerus, was born in Zwolle in 1743, studied at Leiden and Jena and was ordained in 1766. He preached in Dordrecth, until 1780 when he was despatched to the Cape on the Krooswyik. In 1742, the German community in the Cape requested permission from the Dutch East Indian Company to establish their own church. The German farmer Martin Melck, from Elsenburg, donated one of his “sheds” in Strand Street as the first Lutheran Church. It was the first new denominational church allowed by the Dutch, but they were instructed to only preach in Dutch. The first service was led by Andreas on 10 December 1780. Their were 441 members, 300 Germans, the rest Dutch and Scandinavians. He married Antonia Adriana HEZELER. They had two children: Wilhelmus (1769) and Johanna Elizabeth (1786) [married Andries CRONJE in 1805] || NL: VAN VUUREN, Gerrit (Janse): Gerrit J. VAN VUUREN was born about 1660 in Vuren, Netherlands; and died in June 1700 in the Cape. He was the son of UNKNOWN, Johannes born about 1647 in Gelderland; died about 1667 in Vuren. In circa 1689, Gerrit married Susanna JACOBS (born in 1671 in Calais, France, and died in 1696 in the Cape). Susanna was the daughter of Pierre JACOBS (1643, Calais, Artois, France) and Suzanna DE VOS (1645, France). She died in October 1696. 29 NO: FURSTENBERG, Johan Pieter: Johan Pieter FÜRSTENBERG was born about 1760 in Bergen, Norway. He was an officer in the artillery and is referred to by some sources as: Johan Petrus. On 04 July 1784 he married Anna Elizabeth HAMMES (01.03.1767) in Capetown; daughter of Pieter Casper HAMMES (~1752, Drakenstein) and Maria Magdalena DELPORT (1753, Sergauts River, Swellendam). 30 UK: JOHNSTONE James Augustus: James Augustus JOHNSTONE was born circa 1810 in Edinburgh (Dumpfries), Scotland, and was an 1820 settler to Port Elizabeth. On 20 September 1837 he married Elizabeth Cornelia ROOS in Port Elizabeth, from Laings Nek in Natal (daughter of Francois ROOS, born 13/05/1791; and Maria Elisabeth FURSTENBURG, born 03/11/1805); and in 1840’s after the birth of their first son, they moved to Natal. || UK: KOLBE George Augustus & DOWNING Margaret: George Augusts KOLBE was born on 7 December 1802 in London, travelled to South Africa as an English settler, employed as a missionary doctor, settling on the farm Wurtenburg, Knopdaar, near Burgersdorp, where he died on 01 December 1844. He married Margaret Downing (descendant of Sir George Downing), born in London on 23 February 1805, who died in Burgersdorp on 25 November 1861. They had 15 children.

7

“Colonial Empire” decision-making, to find only the Bushman as indigenous

natives. They arrived as “settler” farmers, soldiers, medical personnel, religious and

political administrators, frequently on behalf of, and for the benefit of European

Political and Financial Imperial Interests. She is the co-founder of CommonSism

and Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence; and a paralegal activist on behalf of MILINT

Earth Day31.

PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT:

Current Definition: Parties to the Conflict:

[13] Armed Conflict is defined in How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined

in International Humanitarian Law?; a March 2008 Opinion Paper32 by the

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); as follows:

[13.1] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

proposed a general definition of international armed conflict. In the Tadic case, the

Tribunal stated that "an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed

force between States".33 This definition has been adopted by other international

bodies since then.

[13.2] According to D. Schindler, "the existence of an armed conflict within the

meaning of Article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions can always be assumed

when parts of the armed forces of two States clash with each other. […] Any kind of use of arms between two States brings the Conventions into effect"34.

[13.3] H.-P. Gasser explains that "any use of armed force by one State against the

territory of another, triggers the applicability of the Geneva Conventions between the

two States. […] It is also of no concern whether or not the party attacked resists. […] As soon as the armed forces of one State find themselves with wounded or

surrendering members of the armed forces or civilians of another State on their

hands, as soon as they detain prisoners or have actual control over a part of the

territory of the enemy State, then they must comply with the relevant convention"35.

31 http://tygae.weebly.com/ 32 https://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/home/HideATab/FullyPreparedtoManage/ ConflictResolution/AboutConflict/Definitions/tabid/226/Default.aspx 33 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, IT-94-1-A, 2 October 1995, para. 70. 34 D. Schindler, The different Types of Armed Conflicts According to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, RCADI, Vol. 163, 1979-II, p. 131. 35 H.P. Gasser, International Humanitarian Law: an Introduction, in: Humanity for All: the International

8

[13.4] The German Joint Services Regulations (ZDv) 15/2 says that "an

international armed conflict exists if one party uses force of arms against another

party. […] The use of military force by individual persons or groups of persons will not suffice"36.

[13.5] According to E. David, "tout affrontement armé entre forces des Etats

parties aux CG de 1949 (et éventuellement au 1er PA de 1977) relève de ces

instruments, quelle que soit l'ampleur de cet affrontement: une escarmouche, un

incident de frontière entre les forces armées des Parties suffisent à provoquer

l'application des Conventions (et du 1er Protocole, s'il lie les Etats) à cette

situation"37.

[13.6] Additionally Judgments and decisions of the ICTY also shed some light on

the definition of Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). As mentioned above,

the ICTY went on to determine the existence of a NIAC "whenever there is […] protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed

groups or between such groups within a State".38 The ICTY thus confirmed that the

definition of NIAC in the sense of common Article 3 encompasses situations where

"several factions [confront] each other without involvement of the government's

armed forces"39. Since that first ruling, each judgment of the ICTY has taken this

definition as a starting point.

[14] The ICRC proposes the following definitions which reflect the strong

prevailing legal opinion:

[14.1] International armed conflicts exist whenever there is resort to armed force

between two or more States.

[14.2] Non-international armed conflicts are protracted armed confrontations

occurring between governmental armed forces and the forces of one or more armed

groups, or between such groups arising on the territory of a State [party to the

Geneva Conventions]. The armed confrontation must reach a minimum level of

intensity and the parties involved in the conflict must show a minimum of

organisation.

Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, H. Haug (ed.), Paul Haupt Publishers, Berne, 1993, p. 510-511. 36 D. Fleck, The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995, p. 40. 37 E. David, Principes de droit des conflits armés, ULB, Bruxelles, 2002, p. 109. 38 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, IT-94-1-A, 2 October 1995, para.70. 39 Y. Sandoz/C.Swinarski/B. Zimmermann, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, para. 4461.

9

[15] As noted none of the ICRC’s aforementioned definitions of ‘armed conflict’ or

‘non-international armed conflict’, and hence ‘parties to the conflict’ address the root causes of armed conflict; hence the parties directly responsible for the co-

creation of the resource scarcity or other political or human nature conditions, the

result of which is the particular form of ‘armed conflict’.

Suggested Definitions:

[16] Breeding/Consumption Scarcity Combatant Parties to the Conflict:

[16.1] Any individual, organisation or nation whose procreation or consumption

footprint violates its commons carrying capacity limits; should be designated as a

‘breeding/consumption’ scarcity combatant party to any local, regional, national or international resource scarcity related conflict.

[17] Breeding/Consumption Weapons of War:

[17.1] “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis, the womb, and the ego. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control

its population and consumption, to below carrying capacity limits; by discussion,

debate, intelligent analysis, etc.; you must consider their action in using the penis

and the womb to increase population; or using the ego to consume in violation of

carrying capacity limits; an Act of War” – Amended version of quote by Judge Jason

G. Brent, in Humans: An Endangered Species.

[18] Biological Warfare:

[18.1] Biological Warfare is simply a symptom of breeding and consumption

biological behaviours. The most dangerous root cause biological warfare ingredients

are (a) male sperm; (b) female ovaries; and (c) ego-gender insecurity memeplexes

that have hijacked our brain-matter/minds; to engage in breeding war and

consumption warfare behaviour; resulting in ecological overshot, standing armies

and finally military biological warfare.

[19] Chemical Warfare:

[19.1] Chemical Warfare is simply a symptom of breeding and consumption

chemical behaviours. The most dangerous root cause chemical warfare ingredients

are (a) male sperm; (b) female ovaries; and (c) ego-gender insecurity memeplexes

that have hijacked our brain-matter/minds; to engage in breeding war and

10

consumption warfare behaviour; resulting in ecological overshot, standing armies

and finally military chemical warfare.

[20] Fraud of UN ‘Peace’ and ‘War’ Treaties:

[20.1] Any United Nations endorsed international treaty related to ‘war’ or ‘peace’ that ignores specifically addressing the breeding war and consumption war violation of carrying capacity limits root causes of ecological overshoot, which

subsequently manifests as cannon fodder standing armies and their creation of

military chemical, biological, technological, electronic and other related warfare

ingredients, is based upon deception and fraud.

MILINT Ecology of Peace Guerrylla Lawfare Laws: Breeding/Consumption

Scarcity Combatant Parties to the Conflict:

[21] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint40 procreation and consumption

behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or

Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable

consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha)41 (60 % of 1.8 gha)42 in

accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan43; multiplied by an

individuals procreation footprint factor of 20 per child. [(Each Child increases a

parents footprint by factor of 2044)]

[22] For example: Applicant’s Consumption Footprint45 using Sustainable

Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's

average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. Applicant has no children,

consequently her procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. Her Consumption (12.75) x 40 EcoFootprint: The difference between the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country. A biocapacity deficit occurs when the Footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. If there is a regional or national biocapacity deficit, it means that the region is importing biocapacity through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. Global biocapacity deficit cannot be compensated through trade, and is overshoot. 41 Sustainable Footprint Biocapacity: A biocapacity of 1 gha assumes that 40% of land is set aside for other species. 1 gha is 60 % of 1.8 gha, therefore .8 hectares is set aside for other species. 42 International Biocapacity: In 2006, the average biologically productive area (biocapacity) per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. In 2008, there were ~ 12 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on Earth. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year (6.7 billion) gives 1.79 global hectares per person. This assumes that no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans. 43 Bhutan Proactive Conservation: Bhutan is seen as a model for proactive conservation initiatives. The Kingdom has received international acclaim for its commitment to the maintenance of its biodiversity. This is reflected in the decision to maintain at least sixty percent of the land area under forest cover, to designate more than 40% of its territory as national parks, reserves and other protected areas, and most recently to identify a further nine percent of land area as biodiversity corridors linking the protected areas. Environmental conservation has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy, the middle path. It is not treated as a sector but rather as a set of concerns that must be mainstreamed in Bhutan's overall approach to development planning and to be buttressed by the force of law. - "Parks of Bhutan". Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation online. Bhutan Trust Fund. 44 Paul Murtaugh (7-31-09): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University http://sqswans.weebly.com/child--ecofootprint-x-20.html 45 http://myfootprint.org/en/your_results/?id=2559685

11

Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed

and procreated like Applicant, we would need 0.81 earths.46 Conversely, if everyone

consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths47.

[23] Ecology of Peace Status on Planet of 7 billion: Procreation and

Consumption below cultural carrying capacity limits: (a) Zero children,

consumption footprint < 20 gha; (b) 1 child, consumption footprint < 1 gha.

[24] Scarcity – Combatant Status on Planet of 7 billion: Procreation and/or

Consumption above cultural carrying capacity limits: (a) Zero children, with

consumption footprint above 20 gha; (b) One child, with consumption footprint

above 1 gha; (c) Two or more children.

[25] Planet of 1 Billion: Ecology of Peace status of 1 child is 12 gha: If for

example, there were only 3.5 billion people alive this year, that would have

provided everyone with one child, with 3.5 gha (instead of 1 gha), and no children

with 3.5 gha x 20 = 60.5 gha. If there were only 1 billion people, every person with

one child would have access to 12 gha biocapacity for their needs, without

transgressing carrying capacity limits, and entering into ecological overshoot. Note:

The above statistics are also based upon using only 60 percent of biologically

productive land of 12 billion hectares / population; meaning that 40 percent of

biologically productive land is returned to its natural state, for other species and

wildlife conservation purposes.

PRISONER OF WAR:

[26] Current Definition: Prisoner of War:

[27] Article Four of Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of

War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 195048; defines Prisoners of War as

follows:

46 http://sqworms.weebly.com/lara-johnstone-eco-081.html 47 President Zuma’s consumption footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 65.66 global hectares (gha). President Zuma’s Procreation Factor is 500 [President Zuma has 25 children. His procreation footprint factor is 25 x 20* = 500. (Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20)]. President Zuma’s Net Consumption & Procreation Footprint is 33280 gha [Consumption (65.66) x Procreation (500) = Net Footprint of 33280 gha]. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Zuma, we would need 2,090 earths. http://sqworms.weebly.com/jacob-zuma-ego-2090.html 48 http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

12

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are

persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have

fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well

as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such

armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer

corps, including those of organized resistance movements,

belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside

their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided

that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized

resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his

subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a

distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the

laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a

government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being

members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft

crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour

units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed

forces, provided that they have received authorization from the

armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for

that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices,

of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the

Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable

treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach

of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading

forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular

armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws

and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war

under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of

the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it

necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even

though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were

13

going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where

such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the

armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in

combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them

with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in

the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-

belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are

required to intern under international law, without prejudice to

any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to

give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth

paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist

between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-

belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the

Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the

Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be

allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting

Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to

the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity

with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

[28] Suggested Terminology: Military and Political Prisoners of Sex and

War:

[29] Applicants suggest that (a) the terminology be changed to “Military and

Political Prisoners of Sex and War”; (b) the aforementioned individuals status be

amended to ‘Military Prisoners of Sex and War’; and (c) that generally considered

‘Political Prisoners’ (individuals convicted of criminal offences, who claimed their

criminal acts were subjectively politically motivated) also be granted the status of

‘Political Prisoners of Sex and War’.

Recommendations for abolishing Commons Cheating ‘rule of men’ jurisprudence and implementing Ecological Carrying Capacity ‘rule

of law’ jurisprudence.

[30] Elimination of the ‘underlying essential breeding and consumption

war causes and elements of armed conflict’:

[30.1] A community practising ‘commons cheating’ hoping to move to ‘commons conservation’ would need to (a) reward the Eco-Innocents to maintain their Eco-

Innocent status; and (b) identify the Scarcity Combatant Cheaters who may

14

voluntarily agree to work towards amending their status to Eco-Innocents, to

encourage their Ecologically Literate Awakening.

[31] Extensive Environment/Overshoot-Scarcity-Conflict documentation from

military and intelligence agencies, united nations and governments, NGO’s and academic reports, etc, collectively document how legislative failure to restrict

humanity’s procreation and consumption to cultural carrying capacity limits, and Legal Matrix Indulgences to Corporations: Socialized Corporate Externality Costs:

Trillion Dollar Thefts from Global Natural Capital Commons49, has resulted in

humanity’s ecological overshoot of carrying capacity limits by between 700 to 400,000 percent50; which include crossing urgent Planetary Boundary Tipping

Points51: (i) Loss of Biodiversity and Species Extinctions52; (ii) Climate Change53;

(iii) Nitrogen Cycle54; (iv) Ocean Acidification55; (v) Changes in Land Use56; (vi)

Global Freshwater Use57; (vii) State Shift in the Earth’s Biosphere58; (viii) Peak

Non-Renewable Natural Resources: Scarcity59; with devastating current climate-

resource-scarcity-conflict and refugees, and impending threat multiplier

aggravation of crisis of ‘scarcity-conflict’ death spiral consequences.

[32] Obstacles to mitigating Ecological, Economic and Climate Collapse; and

possible or definite Near Term Extinction include an absence of ecologically literate

citizens to demand national constitutional and international law social contract

jurisprudence, in support of the Ecology of Peace commandment: “Thou shalt not legislate, enforce or obey any law which enables citizens procreation or

consumption to transgress cultural carrying capacity limits”; or (b) provide clear, rational, impartial, fair and equitable justifications for violating the ecological

commandment.

[33] In Your Face Eco and Egological Citizen Referendum:

[33.1] The term ‘In Your Face’ is derived from the From the Wilderness “In your Face’60 article which explains among other things: (a) The reasons why activists of

49 http://tygae.weebly.com/corp-externalities.html 50 http://tygae.weebly.com/ecological-overshoot.html 51 http://tygae.weebly.com/tipping-points.html 52 http://tygae.weebly.com/biodiversity-loss.html 53 http://tygae.weebly.com/climate-change.html 54 http://tygae.weebly.com/nitrogen-cycle.html 55 http://tygae.weebly.com/ocean-acidification.html 56 http://tygae.weebly.com/land-use.html 57 http://tygae.weebly.com/freshwater-use.html 58 http://tygae.weebly.com/biosphere-state-shift.html 59 http://tygae.weebly.com/peak-nnr-scarcity.html 60 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html

15

all stripes are generally ineffective; and (b) the lessons to be learnt from the movie

Three Days of the Condor; culminating with the question: “What do you want?”

[33.2] The term ‘Honourable’ refers to avoiding Bullshit the public relations [i.e

the manipulation of the public using seething Energies of Lucifer PC61 aka Zionist

divide and conquer PR62] in terms of dialogue with the citizen/subject public and

instead confronting them with the harsh reality of either (a) voluntarily, humanely

and non-violently reducing their consumption and procreation to carrying capacity

limits and supporting legislation to such effect; or (b) experiencing the coercive,

resource war divide and conquer race, culture and religious resource war violence

that shall result from the failure to voluntarily internationally reduce population

and consumption.

[33.3] Recommendations: Honourable ‘In Your Face’ Public Population and Consumption Reduction Campaigns.

Honourable ‘In Your Face’ Public Population Reduction:

Disclose the Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS, as a ‘Shock & Awe’ Wake Up Call to World’s Breeding War Citizens of the relationship between Sex and

War.

[34] The EOPGASM JAG Ecology of Peace Invitation Proposal to disclose the

Iatrogenic Origins of AIDS, as a ‘Shock and Awe’ Wake Up Call to World Citizens of the relationship between Sex and War; including to the most obtuse and ignorant,

to provide stimulation and opportunity for an International Public Discourse

Debate about implementing the Ecology of Peace commandment into International

Law; in support of preventing Ecological Collapse and possible Near Term

Extinction and/or the Tragedy of the Common’s Nuclear War.

[35] Brief overview of origins of AIDS:

“Birth Rates Must Come Down More Quickly Or Current Death Rates Must Go Up. There Is No Other Way.” -- Robert McNamara, Worldbank President, 1970;

previously Secretary of Defence from 1961 to 196863

61 http://sqswans-prh.blogspot.com/2013/12/racism-is-white-supremacy-home-of.html 62 http://www.facebook.com/notes/lara-zhivago/wanna-discuss-zionismzionists-or-racismracists-please-provide-your-definition-of/10151133308889507 63 Sutton (1993/12)

16

[36] In July 1969 Dr. MacArthur, Director of the U.S. Army Advanced Research

Project Agency (ARPA) appeared before Congress, stating that “within a period of 5-10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent

that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been

acquired.”64

[37] According to Dr. Leonard Horowitz and Dr. John Martin, a Professor of

Pathology at the University of Southern California, & the Director of the Center for

Complex Infectious Diseases, former director of the Viral Oncology Branch of the

FDA's Bureau of Biologics, the government's principal human vaccines agency, this

“synthetic biological agent” is AIDS, created with $10 million, as required65.

[38] Dr. MacArthur added that “it is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to another

method of massive killing of large populations.”66

[39] On October 2, 1970, 15 months after Dr. MacArthur requested an

appropriation for AIDS development, Robert McNamara, now World Bank

President, made a speech to international bankers in which he identified

population growth as “the gravest issue that the world faces over the years ahead,”

arguing that population growth was leading to instability, that a 10 billion world

population would not be “controllable.”67

[40] McNamara predicted that “it is not a world that any of us would want to live in. Is such a world inevitable? It is not sure but there are two possible ways by

which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birth rates

must come down more quickly or the current death rates must go up. There is no

other way.”68

[41] Dr. Horowitz‘s book “Emerging Viruses” explores the geopolitical background

prior to the appearance of AIDS, and reviews the vaccines studies conducted in

New York City and Central West Africa, by the Special Virus program, under the

auspices of the National Cancer Institute and the World Health Organisation.

Experiments such as the Merck contract suggesting an Iatrogenic origin of AIDS,

where Feline Leukema/Sarcoma, Herpes virus, and Monkey cancer viruses were

64 Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970 65 Horowitz (1999) 66 Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970 67 Sutton (1993/12) 68 Sutton (1993/12)

17

being combined, which led to the Pilot Hepatitus B Vaccines69 partially prepared in

Chimpanzees, given to gay men in New York City and African Blacks by 197570.

[42] Special Virus Cancer Program documentation includes a flow chart, which

links all the 20,000 scientific papers, proving a “candidate” virus was developed and

mass produced,71 and the USUSSR agreement under which Biological Weapons

including the most advanced cancer viruses were traded during the Cold War72, in

terms of “A Memorandum of Understanding for cooperation in the study of microbiology, immunology, and molecular biology of cancer viruses was first signed

on November 18, 1972,” which “established procedures for joint studies through the

exchange of information, materials and scientists between the two countries.” A

partial list of US and USSR researchers, including Dr. Robert Gallo (the discoverer

of AIDS) of the NCI, traded the most advanced methods and materials in field of

molecular biology, bacteriology & virology during the Cold War, including “large scale production of human virus”.

[43] In Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40,

AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines, Mike Adams writes that “One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry -- a Merck

scientist -- made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to

Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his

colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think

it's hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in

Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will

all be “loaded down with tumors.” (Thus, they knew these vaccines caused cancer in

humans.) This isn't some conspiracy theory -- these are the words of a top Merck

scientist who probably … thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn't get out to the press, he replied “Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community.””

Honourable ‘In Your Face’ Public Consumption Reduction:

Implement Shibumi-Task Force MN-737, as a Military Necessity ‘Scarcity

Combatant Cheater Assassination’ Wake Up Call to Consumption War

69 Horowitz (2001) p.270: “Combine these two diseases – feline leukemia and hepatitis – and you have the immune deficiency” syndrome today called AIDS, said CDC hepatitis B chief Dr. Don Francis at the onset of the AIDS epidemic. 70 NIH Contract No: NIH-71-2059: Merck & Company, Inc. Project Director: Dr. Maurice Hilleman 71 National Inst. of Health: Progress Report # 9 (Fold In Chart) 72 Page 36-39; U.S. Special Virus Program, Progress Report # 15, June 1978, (417pp)

18

Oligarchs of the relationship between Consumption and War; to Tragedy

of the Commons coercively stimulate their collective demand for the

implantation of Æquilibriæx international jurisprudence.

[44] It is suggested that more than a few international oligarchs would embrace

the opportunity to voluntarily (a) follow the path of Douglas and Kristine

Tompkins73, who are investing all their wealth into transforming the economy to a

sustainable low tech agrarian economy74; and/or (b) massively reduce their

consumption aiming towards carrying capacity limits; (c) if Æquilibriæx

jurisprudence limiting procreation and consumption of all the worlds citizens; was

internationally implemented.

[45] In the absence of international implementation of Æquilibriæx jurisprudence

limiting procreation and consumption of all the worlds citizens to carrying capacity

limits; they have no incentive to reduce their wealth thereby exposing themselves

and their families, and their countries, to the harsher consequences of humanity’s failure to prevent global Ecological, Economic and Climate Collapse, and possible or

definite near term extinction.

[46] To the contrary, they would probably use their wealth, not to mention their

divide and conquer public relations skills, to massively reduce population using

their tried and tested divide and conquer race, class and religious resource war

skills; hoping to be amongst the survivors.

[47] Suggested Shibumi-Task Force MN-737 actions:

[47.1] Contact oligarchs to determine their commitment to the implementation of

international Æquilibriæx jurisprudence.

[47.2] Commitment equating to said oligarch’s family donating ten percent of their wealth to an Æquilibriæx jurisprudence trust fund, setup for the

implementation of Æquilibriæx jurisprudence internationally or nationally (as

appropriate, transparently audited).

[47.3] Any oligarch’s family who refuses to commit to the implementation of international Æquilibriæx jurisprudence; should be provided the opportunity to

argue how and why they refuse; and whether their refusal justifies their exclusion

from military necessity requirements to implement an orderly humane program of

population and consumption reduction to prevent global Ecological, Economic and

Climate Collapse, and possible or definite near term extinction.

73 http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/technology-stopped-evolution-destroying-world 74 http://www.tompkinsconservation.org/dvd_the_next_economy.htm?iframe=true&width=480&height=360

19

[47.4] If the oligarch’s family’s objections do not justify their exclusion from the

implementation of international Æquilibriæx jurisprudence; they should be notified

that two members of their oligarch family shall be assassinated every two weeks;

until the family changes their mind.

Sustainable Security: A Military Necessity

[48] Military Necessity Doctrine:

[49] As argued in the military necessity related application currently before the

European Court of Human Rights, in the matter of Johnstone v. Kingdom of

Norway; dealing with the Oslo District Courts irregular denial to Anders Breivik of

a subjective and objective enquiry into his Military Necessity Defence evidence:

[49.1] Necessity Defence: International and Foreign Law:

A. The rationale of the necessity defense is not that a person, when faced

with the pressure of circumstances of nature, lacks the mental element

which the crime in question requires. Rather, it is this reason of public

policy: the law ought to promote the achievement of higher values at the

expense of lesser values, and sometimes the greater good for society will

be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.75

B. The principle of the necessity defence is rooted in common law and any

accused pleading to necessity argues that their actions were justified or an

exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants who plead to necessity –

whether common law necessity, political necessity (civil disobedience) or

military necessity - argue that they should not be held liable for their

actions as being criminal, because their conduct was necessary to prevent

some greater harm.

[49.2] As argued in The Necessity Defense in Civil Disobedience Cases: Bring in

the Jury, by William P. Quigley:

A. [..] The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices of evil,

holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and produces harm,

is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social

gain or benefit to society.76

B. Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “[S]ome acts that would otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or

75 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, CRIMINAL LAW, § 5.4, at 477 (3d ed. 2000). 76 See Joseph J. Simeone, “Survivors” of the Eternal Sea: A Short True Story, 45 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 1123, 1141 (2001).

20

by the necessity of choosing the lesser of two evils.”77 He offers this

example: “Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he

knows will result in one or two people being drowned, or doing nothing, in

which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point involving a

whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an

unhappy choice between the destruction of one life and the destruction of

many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly justify the actor in preferring

the lesser evil.”78

C. In Nuclear War, Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense79, Robert

Aldridge and Virginia Stark, document numerous cases of Common Law

and Civil Disobedience Necessity Defence Cases which resulted in

Innocence verdicts or severe Mitigation of Sentencing.

[49.3] Common Law Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence Verdicts or

Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:

A. In Regina v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, three crew members

and a cabin boy escaped a shipwreck to spend eighteen days on a boat,

over 1,000 miles from land, with no water and only two one pound tins of

turnips. After four days, they caught and ate a small turtle. That was the

only food that they had eaten prior to the twentieth day of being lost at

sea. Ultimately, two of the crew members killed the ailing cabin boy and

“fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days.” Four days later,

they were rescued. Two of the men were charged with murder. The court

found that the cabin boy would likely have died by the time they were

rescued and that the crew members, but for their conduct, would probably

have died as well. The Queen's Bench Division Judges held that the

defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that

their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to

death, but this was subsequently commuted to six months' imprisonment.

B. In Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), the Texas

Criminal Appeals Court allowed the jury to be instructed on the necessity

defense before deliberating the verdict for an inmate whose three

cellmates had planned an escape and threatened to slit his throat if he did

not accompany them. The defendant inmate argued that because of the

terribly violent crimes of which his cellmates had been convicted (one had

bragged about chopping his girlfriend up with an ax), it was a necessity

that he break the law, by accompanying them in their escape.

77 GLANVILLE WILLIAMS, THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND THE CRIMINAL LAW 198 (1957). 78 Glanvill Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law 198 (1957). At 199-200 79 http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1887&context=lawreview

21

C. In United States v. Ashton, 24 F. Cas. 873, 873-74 (C.C.D. Mass 1834) (No.

14,470), sailors prosecuted for mutiny were found not guilty, after arguing

the necessity for their mutiny based upon the dangerously leaky ship and

that this danger had been concealed from them until after they left port.

Circuit Justice Story found them not guilty of mutiny.

D. In United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383),

Holmes was involved in a shipwreck, where the crew were charged with

manslaughter for throwing sixteen passengers overboard in a frantic

attempt to lighten a sinking lifeboat. The Prosecutor argued the

passengers should be protected at all costs, whereas the Defence placed

the jurors in the sinking lifeboat with the defendant. The Defendant was

found guilty, but the jurors requested leniency, to which the court

complied by sentencing the defendant to six months in prison and a fine of

twenty dollars.

E. In the 1919 Arizona decision of State v. Wooten, commonly referred to as

the Bisbee Deportation case, Professor Morris80 describes the acquittal of a

Sherrif based upon the “necessity” for committing Kidnapping.

F. In Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), a large fire threatened the unburned

half of the then small town of San Francisco. A public officer ordered the

destruction of houses to create a firebreak and was subsequently sued by

one of the owners. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the

action was proper because: “The right to destroy property, to prevent the

spread of a conflagration, has been traced to the highest law of necessity,

and the natural rights of man, independent of society and the civil

government. "It is referred by moralists and jurists as the same great

principle which justifies the exclusive appropriation of a plank in a

shipwreck, though the life of another be sacrificed; with the throwing

overboard goods in a tempest, for the safety of the vessel; with the

trespassing upon the lands of another, to escape death by an enemy. It

rests upon the maxim, Necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private."

[Necessity leads to privileges because of private justice].”

[49.4] Civil Disobedience Political Necessity Defence Cases Resulting in Innocence

Verdicts or Severe Mitigation of Sentencing:

A. In the United States, 23 cases of left wing/liberal political protestors

necessity defence cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of

sentencing, whereas only 1 case of right wing/conservative political

protestors cases have resulted in innocence or severe mitigation of

sentencing. 80 Norval Morris, The Verswami Story, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 948, 989 (1985); see also The Law of Necessity as Applied in the Bisbee Deportation Case.

22

B. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti Nuclear (10): State v. Mouer (Columbia Co. Dist.

Ct., Dec. 12-16, 1977), People v. Brown (Lake County, Jan. 1979); People v.

Block (Galt Judicial Dist., Sacramento Co. Mun. Ct., Aug. 14, 1979);

California v. Lemnitzer, No. 27106E (Pleasanton-Livermore Mun. Ct. Feb.

1, 1982); State v. McMillan, No. D 00518 (San Luis Obispo Jud. Dist. Mun.

Ct., Cal. Oct. 13, 1987); Massachusetts v. Schaeffer-Duffy (Worcester Dist.

Ct. 1989); West Valley City v. Hirshi, No. 891003031-3 MC (Salt Lake

County, Ut. Cir. Ct., W. Valley Dept. 1990); Washington v. Brown, No. 85-

1295N (Kitsap County Dist. Ct. N. 1985); California v. Jerome, Nos.

5450895, 5451038, 5516177, 5516159 (Livermore-Pleasanton Mun. Ct.,

Alameda County, Traffic Div. 1987); Washington v. Karon, No. J85-1136-

39 (Benton County Dist. Ct. 1985)

C. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti US Central American Foreign Policy (3); Vermont

v. Keller, No. 1372-4-84-CNCR (Vt. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 1984); People v.

Jarka, Nos. 002170, 002196-002212, 00214, 00236, 00238 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr.

15, 1985); Colorado v. Bock (Denver County Ct. June 12, 1985)

D. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Military Industrial Complex (4): Michigan v.

Jones et al., Nos. 83-101194-101228 (Oakland County Dist. Ct. 1984);

Michigan v. Largrou, Nos. 85-000098, 99, 100, 102 (Oakland County Dist.

Ct. 1985); Massachusetts v. Carter, No. 86-45 CR 7475 (Hampshire Dist.

Ct. 1987); Illinois v. Fish (Skokie Cir. Ct. Aug. 1987)

E. Left Wing/Liberal: Anti-Apartheid (3): Chicago v. Streeter, Nos. 85-108644,

48, 49, 51, 52, 120323, 26, 27 (Cir. Ct., Cook County Ill. May 1985);

Washington v. Heller (Seattle Mun. Ct. 1985); Washington v. Bass, Nos.

4750-038, -395 to -400 (Thurston County Dist. Ct. April 8, 1987)

F. Left Wing/Liberal: Pro-Environment/Cycling (1): People v. Gray, 571

N.Y.S.2d 851, 861-62 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.1991)

G. Left Wing/Liberal: AIDS: Clean Needles Campaign (2) California v.

Halem, No. 135842 (Berkeley Mun. Ct. 1991); In 1993, a jury acquitted a

Chicago AIDS activist charged with illegally supplying clean needles

because of the necessity defense.81

H. Right Wing/Conservative: Anti-Abortion (1): In 1990, in Omaha,

Nebraska, a jury acquitted seventeen anti-abortion protestors because of

the necessity defense. The trial judge relied on the defense to overturn the

trespassing convictions of an additional eighteen defendants.82

81 Andrew Fegelman, AIDS Activist Found Innocent of Charges in Needle Exchange, CHI. TRIB., Jan. 28, 1993, at 4. 82 Judge Says Actions of Anti-abortionists at Clinic Justified, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD, July 17, 1990. In a seventeen-page order discussing necessity and the priority of life over property rights, District Judge Robert Burkard reversed the convictions for trespassing. An additional seventeen abortion protestors were acquitted by a jury on similar grounds in June 2000.

23

I. Neutral: Anti-Corruption (1): In 1988, a North Carolina court acquitted

two Tuscarora Indians of charges in connection with their taking of twenty

hostages at the office of a local newspaper to protest the alleged corruption

of county officials.83

J. Neutral: Anti-Alcohol Advertising (1): In 1991, a Chicago jury acquitted a

Catholic priest of criminal charges for damage to the inner-city

neighborhood where he was pastor after he admitted painting over three

tobacco- and alcohol-related billboards. The defendant argued he should

not be convicted because of the necessity defense. The jury deliberated

ninety minutes before acquitting the defendant.84

[49.5] Military Necessity and International Humanitarian Law:

A. Crimes of War85 and Diakona86 define military necessity as: “a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal

justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have

adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It

means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to

take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any

given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military

necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war

or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside

other considerations of IHL.”

B. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal

Court, investigated allegations of War Crimes during the 2003 invasion of

Iraq and published an open letter87 containing his findings. In a section

titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" he did not call it military

necessity but summed up the term: “Under international humanitarian

law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict,

no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war

crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit

belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,

even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A

crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians

(principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a

military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries

would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military

advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).” 83 Two Carolina Indians Acquitted in Hostage Taking, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 15, 1988, at 9. 84 Terry Wilson, Acquittal Answers Pfleger‘s Prayers, CHI. TRIB., July 3, 1991, at 3. 85 http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/ 86 http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=888 87 http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf

24

[49.6] Military Necessity Justifies use of Nuclear Weapons for Self-Preservation:

A. In the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, on The legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons88, the final paragraph

states “that such threat or use would generally be contrary to

international humanitarian law. The opinion went on to state, however,

that the court “cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to self-defence . . . when its survival is

at stake.” The court held, by seven votes to seven, with its president‘s casting vote, that it “cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or

use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme

circumstance of self defence in which the very survival of a State would be

at stake.”

[49.7] Military Necessity in Nuremberg German High Command Trial:

A. In the Trial of Wilhelm von Leeb and Thirteen Others: United States

Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 30th December, 1947 – 28 the October,

194889

B. Wilhelm von Leeb and the other thirteen accused in this case were former

high-ranking officers in the German Army and Navy, and officers holding

high positions in the German High Command (OKW) were charged with

Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and with

Conspiracy to commit such crimes. The War Crimes and Crimes against

Humanity charged against them included murder and ill-treatment of

prisoners of war and of the civilian population in the occupied territories

and their use in prohibited work; discrimination against and persecution

and execution of Jews and other sections of the population by the

Wehrmacht in co-operation with the Einsatzgruppen and

Sonderkommandos of the SD, SIPO and the Secret Field Police; plunder

and spoliation and the enforcement of the slave labour programme of the

Reich.

C. They were acquitted of some of the charges, where it was ascertained that

military necessity existed objectively and/or subjectively in the particular

circumstances.

D. The Tribunal argued that “The devastation prohibited by the Hague Rules

and the usages of war is that not warranted by military necessity. This

rule is clear enough but the factual determination as to what constitutes

military necessity is difficult. Defendants in this case were in many

instances in retreat under arduous conditions wherein their commands

88 http://www.un.org/law/icjsum/9623.htm 89 http://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1948.10.28_United_States_v_von_Leeb.pdf

25

were in serious danger of being cut off. Under such circumstances, a

commander must necessarily make quick decisions to meet the particular

situation of his command. A great deal of latitude must be accorded to him

under such circumstances. What constitutes devastation beyond military

necessity in these situations requires detailed proof of an operational and

tactical nature. We do not feel that in this case the proof is ample to

establish the guilt of any defendant herein on this charge.”

E. Thus, in dealing with Reinhardt's alleged responsibility for plunder and

spoliation, the Tribunal said: “The evidence on the matter of plunder and spoliation shows great ruthlessness, but we are not satisfied that it shows

beyond a reasonable doubt, acts that were not justified by military

necessity.”

[49.8] Military Necessity: The Rendulic Rule: Importance of the Subjective Test:

A. In The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War,

Gary D Solis provides an overview of the Rendulic Rule90 in evaluation of

the subjective test in evaluating a defence of Military Necessity:

B. “In October 1944, Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic was Armed Forces Commander North, which included command of Nazi Forces in Norway.

(Between World Wars I and II, Rendulic had practiced law in his native

Austria.) Following World War II, he was prosecuted for, among other

charges, issuing an order “for the complete destruction of all shelter and means of existence in, and the total evacuation of the entire civilian

population of the northern Norwegian province of Finmark...” Entire

villages were destroyed, bridges and highways bombed, and port

installations wrecked. Tried by an American military commission,

Rendulic's defence was military necessity. He presented evidence that the

Norwegian population would not voluntarily evacuate and that rapidly

approaching Russian forces would use existing housing as shelter and

exploit the local population's knowledge of the area to the detriment of

retreating German forces. The Tribunal acquitted Rendulic of the charge,

finding reasonable his belief that military necessity mandated his orders.

His case offers one of the few adjudicated views of what constitutes

military necessity.

C. From the Tribunals opinion:

D. “Military necessity has been invoked by the defendant's as justifying.. the

destruction of villages and towns in an occupied territory... The

destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the

90 The Hostages Trial: Trial of Wilhelm List and Others; United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 8 July 1947 - 19 February 1948

26

necessities of war... There must be some reasonable connection between

the destruction of property and the overcoming of the enemy forces. It is

lawful to destroy railways, lines of communication, or any other property

that might be utilized by the enemy. Private homes and churches even

may be destroyed if necessary for military operations. It does not admit

the wanton devastation of a district or the wilful infliction of suffering

upon its inhabitants for the sake of suffering alone...

E. “The evidence shows that the Russians had very excellent troops in pursuit of the Germans. Two or three land routes were open to them as

well as landings by sea behind German lines... The information obtained

concerning the intentions of the Russians was limited.. It was with this

situation confronting him that he carried out the "scorched earth" policy in

the Norwegian province of Finmark.. The destruction was as complete as

an efficient army could do it...

F. “There is evidence in the record that there was no military necessity for this destruction and devastation. An examination of the facts in retrospect

can well sustain this conclusion. But we are obliged to judge the situation

as it appeared to the defendant at the time. If the facts were such as would

justify the action by the exercise of judgement, after giving consideration

to all the factors and existing possibilities, even though the conclusion

reached may have been faulty, it cannot be said to be criminal. After

giving careful consideration to all the evidence on the subject, we are

convinced that the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible

although when viewed in retrospect, the danger did not actually exist....

G. “..... We are not called upon to determine whether urgent military necessity for the devastation and destruction in the province of Finmark

actually existed. We are concerned with the question whether the

defendant at the time of its occurrence acted within the limits of honest

judgement on the basis of the conditions prevailing at the time. The course

of a military operation by the enemy is loaded with uncertainties... It is

our considered opinion that the conditions, as they appeared to the

defendant at the time, were sufficient upon which he could honestly

conclude that urgent military necessity warranted the decision made. This

being true, the defendant may have erred in the exercise of his judgement

but he was guilty of no criminal act. We find the defendant not guilty of

the charge.

H. The Rendulic standard remains unchanged. Fifty-four years later, in 2003,

the ICTY wrote: “In determining whether an attack was proportionate it is

necessary to examine whether a reasonably well-informed person in the

circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the

27

information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian

casualties to result from the attack.”91

[49.9] Military Necessity: Rendulic Rule: Subjective Honesty in current Military

Doctrine:

A. In Unexpected Consequences From Knock-On Effects: A Different Standard

for Computer Network Operations?92, Eric Talbot Jensen writes:

B. “The standard the Court held General Rendulic to was the requirement to

give "consideration to all factors and existing possibilities" as they

"appeared to the defendant at the time."”

C. “Note that the requirement to give consideration to all factors and existing possibilities is balanced with the overarching constraint of taking facts as

they appear at the time of the decision. Must the commander remain in

inaction until he feels he has turned over every stone in search of that last

shred of information concerning all factors and possibilities that might

affect his decision? The answer must be "no." Instead, he must act in good

faith and, in accordance with GPI, do everything feasible to get this

information.”

Sustainable Security: Greater Harm of Failing to Mitigate and

Prevent Ecological Overshoot and Climate Collapse:

[50] Commons Carrying Capacity Procreation and Consumption Limits:

[51] In 1972, the now-classic book Limits to Growth93 explored the consequences

for Earth’s ecosystems of exponential growth in population, industrialization,

pollution, food production, and resource depletion.

[52] It concluded that if the present growth trends continued unchanged, the

limits to growth on this planet would be reached sometime within the next one

hundred years. The most probable result would be a rather sudden and

uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

[53] It suggested that it would be possible to alter these growth trends and to

establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into

91 The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic - Case No. IT-98-29-T, 05 December 2003 http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/jud_supplement/supp46-e/galic.htm 92 http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=auilr 93 Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and william Behrens II, The Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1972)

28

the future, if a socio-political system was designed to effect a state of global

equilibrium.

[54] If the world's people decided to strive for this second outcome rather than the

first, the sooner they began working to attain it, the greater would be their chances

of success.

[55] All five elements basic to the study of Limits to Growth — population, food

production, and consumption of non-renewable natural resources — have been

increasing. The amount of their increases each year has followed a pattern that

mathematicians call exponential growth.

29

[56] Since the publication of Limits to Growth, thousands upon thousands of

scientific studies have been conducted and published warning citizens and

politicians of the devastating consequences of humanity growing footprint.

[57] Current evidence for the breach or impending breach of Planetary Boundary

Tipping Points94, includes: (i) Loss of Biodiversity and Species Extinctions95; (ii)

Climate Change96; (iii) Nitrogen Cycle97; (iv) Ocean Acidification98; (v) Changes in

Land Use99; (vi) Global Freshwater Use100; (vii) State Shift in the Earth’s Biosphere101; (viii) Peak Non-Renewable Natural Resources: Scarcity102; and (ix)

Socialized Corporate Externality Costs: Trillion Dollar Thefts from Global Natural

Capital Commons103, amounting to an ecological overshoot of between 700 to

400,000 percent104, with devastating current and impending ‘overshoot-scarcity-

conflict’ death spiral consequences105.

[58] It is common scientific knowledge that the overshoot impacts on the

environment are a consequence of Population, Affluence and Technology (I=PAT).

[59] Zero Preventative Legislation: Nevertheless politicians are not even

debating or considering legislation to temporarily restrict citizen’s consumption and procreation practices to lower levels to reduce these devastating impact

consequences on the ecological foundation of every nation’s natural capital, which would indicate a preventative legislative focus to avoid overshoot-scarcity-conflict

consequences.

Difference between Sustainable Peaceful Procreation, Consumption and

Production and Unsustainable Scarcity-Conflict Procreation,

Consumption and Production

[60] In Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace106, Dr. Jack Alpert

argues that Peaceniks failure to move society from conflict to peace, their

establishment of never ending or honoured “peace accords, moral codes, acts of economic justice, and environmental laws, are like traffic signals” which “cause people to relinquish freedoms” but, “do not stop (change) the behaviors that 94 http://tygae.weebly.com/tipping-points.html 95 http://tygae.weebly.com/biodiversity-loss.html 96 http://tygae.weebly.com/climate-change.html 97 http://tygae.weebly.com/nitrogen-cycle.html 98 http://tygae.weebly.com/ocean-acidification.html 99 http://tygae.weebly.com/land-use.html 100 http://tygae.weebly.com/freshwater-use.html 101 http://tygae.weebly.com/biosphere-state-shift.html 102 http://tygae.weebly.com/peak-nnr-scarcity.html 103 http://tygae.weebly.com/corp-externalities.html 104 http://tygae.weebly.com/ecological-overshoot.html 105 http://sqswans.weebly.com/rapid-population-decline.html 106 www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Peaceniks_Wake_up.html

30

increase scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction”107: “result from a faulty perception of what increases or decreases conflict. Where, peace seekers have acted

as if conflict is caused by bad leadership maybe they should have acted as if trends

in conflict are driven by trends in scarcity. Maybe they would have been more

successful if they acted as if trends in scarcity are driven by the collective behaviors

of 6 billion people. That while each individual acts benignly to achieve personal

objectives the unintentional result is an increase in scarcity and conflict.”

[61] Another reason for ignoring the above view of human conflict – according to

Dr. Alpert -- is that peace seekers, even when successful at restraining the police,

military or mediating hostilities, do not change our course toward conflict. They

only delay it. In the process, peace seekers consume the very energy required to

change the things that would make societies head toward peace.

[62] In Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required: The Future

of Social Conflict108, Dr. Jack Alpert challenges us to answer two questions

Corporate Oligarchs who profit from Unsustainable procreation (demand for more

consumers), production and consumption, including its scarcity-conflict resource

war consequences; do not want citizens, politicians, police, judges, prosecutors and

those tasked with national security to ask themselves.

[63] Let’s consider that Peace and conflict are defined not as descriptions of

behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put

differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations,

but as the unwanted intrusion of one person’s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person.

[64] There are two kinds of conflict:

[64.1] Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he

killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the by-product of other people's

behaviour.

[64.2] Indirect: ‘All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,’ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one. ‘The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,’ and ‘The government is offering people welfare to breed more children’ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group. Free Trade enabling

overexploitation, overproduction and overconsumption of a nation’s natural capital

107 Alpert, Jack (04/01/04): Footprint vs. Freedom: www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Footprint_vs_freedom.html 108 youtu.be/sK8WxeGxkPk

31

resources is an economic intrusion by one set of oligarchs upon another set of

citizens whose lives depend on such natural capital.

[65] System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent,

summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the

sum of six billion sets of direct and indirect intrusions. A measure of any nation’s conflict is the sum of its population sets of direct and indirect intrusions.

[66] Using this definition of conflict, any citizen, politician, policeman, judge or

legislator sincerely concerned about finding out whether and how their nation’s socio-economic and political system is moving towards peace or towards conflict;

can do so, by determining the answers to the following questions:

A. Procreation Footprint: How many children per family leads to peace; or

conversely how many children per family, contributes to greater resource

scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals’ ‘breeding war combatant’ status? [According to the research of Dr. Jack Alpert109,

109 http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html

32

the global answer – currently based on current population numbers -- is

one child per family leads to peace; two or more children leads to conflict]

B. Production/Carbon Footprint: How much exploitation and production

of non-renewable and renewable natural resources relative to the nation’s Natural Capital carrying capacity footprint leads to peace; or conversely

how much of a nation’s non-renewable and renewable natural resources

can or should a corporation exploit into production of consumer goods,

before such exploitation and production contributes to greater resource

scarcity and exponential increase in conflict; i.e. a corporations ‘production combatant’ status? [All utilization of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, contributes to scarcity-

conflict. Peaceful utilization of Aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric

natural habitats requires that they be degraded only at levels less than or

equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature. Exploiting

renewable resources above their capacity to regenerate is not sustainable

and does not contribute to peaceful resource relations; i.e. contribute to

scarcity-conflict110. See Carbon Footprint111]

C. Consumption/Carbon Footprint: How much consumption of non-

renewable and renewable natural resources relative to the nation’s Natural Capital carrying capacity footprint leads to peace; or conversely

how much consumption of non-renewable and renewable natural resources

relative to the nation’s Natural Capital carrying capacity footprint, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in

conflict, i.e. an individuals ‘consumption combatant status’? All consumption of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and

minerals—at any level, contributes to scarcity-conflict. Peaceful

consumption of Aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric natural habitats

requires that they be degraded only at levels less than or equal to the

levels at which they are regenerated by Nature. Exploiting renewable

resources above their capacity to regenerate is not sustainable and does

not contribute to peaceful resource relations; i.e. contribute to scarcity-

110 “Sustainable natural resource utilization behavior involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively. Renewable natural resource reserves can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of nonrenewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable. Aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric natural habitats can be degraded only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature. All other natural resource utilization behavior and all other natural habitat degradation are unsustainable—period.” (Sustainability Defined, by Chris Clugston, author: Scarcity) 111 http://www.carbonfootprint.com

33

conflict112. [See Nation Footprint113; Finance Footprint114, Business

Footprint115; Personal Footprint116]

[67] In the absence of the worlds political, economic and corporate leaders

confronting and acknowledging the difference between sustainable peaceful

consumption and procreation and unsustainable scarcity-conflict aggravating

consumption and procreation; and implementing legislation and Jurisprudence in

accordance thereto; Dr. Alpert provides proof how the global AnthroCorpocentric

Jurisprudence Suicide S.V. Titanic has as much chance of muddling through the

coming ‘Falling Man Syndrome’ Crisis of Conflict, as an individual sitting in an unbelted car crash. (Non-Linearity and Social Conflict117)

[68] Dr. Alpert compares humanity’s belief that “in 200 years, our Right to Breed

and consume has resulted in the exponential consumption of over half of the

Earth's resources, and nothing bad has happened yet”; to a man who has fallen out of a 150 story building, passing the window of the 60th story, calling out to a friend

“‘I’ve fallen 90 stories in the past 5 seconds and nothing bad has happened yet”.

Conclusion

[68.1] Consequently we submit this Æquilibriæx jurisprudence (a)

denouncement and recommendations for amendment of “Parties to the Conflict” and “Prisoner of War” definitions, respectively to “Scarcity Combatant Parties to the Conflict” and “Political Prisoner of Sex and War”; as detailed in Geneva

Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War118, 75 U.N.T.S. 135,

entered into force Oct. 21, 1950; in terms of Article 142119 and 143120; and (b)

112 Ibid: Sustainability Defined, by Chris Clugston, author: Scarcity 113 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/ 114 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_finance/ 115 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_business/ 116 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/personal_footprint/ and http://www.myfootprint.org/ 117 youtu.be/W5capqGod9A 118 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/305?OpenDocument 119 Article 142: Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention. The denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Swiss Federal Council, which shall transmit it to the Governments of all the High Contracting Parties. The denunciation shall take effect one year after the notification thereof has been made to the Swiss Federal Council. However, a denunciation of which notification has been made at a time when the denouncing Power is involved in a conflict shall not take effect until peace has been concluded, and until after operations connected with the release and repatriation of the persons protected by the present Convention have been terminated. The denunciation shall have effect only in respect of the denouncing Power. It shall in no way impair the obligations which the Parties to the conflict shall remain bound to fulfil by virtue of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience. 120 Article 143: The Swiss Federal Council shall register the present Convention with the Secretariat of the United Nations. The Swiss Federal Council shall also inform the Secretariat of the United Nations of all ratifications, accessions and denunciations received by it with respect to the present Convention.

34

Recommendations: Honourable ‘In Your Face’ Public Population and Consumption Reduction Campaigns.

Signed and Sworn to at George on this the 03rd & 14th day of December 2013.

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se George, South Africa Alien on Pale Blue Dot