FAILED: Unconventional Arms Accord
#1

Quote: Unconventional Arms Accord

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: The nations and their deputies here assembled, having convened, conferred, and agreed to the whole of this article, have made the following determinations:

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.

ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.

iii. Although it is imperative for nations to defend themselves, their people and their allies against attacks by hostile forces, the killing of civilians by such means is wholly unnecessary for this purpose.

iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.

v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.

vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war.

They have therefore committed the United Nations to the following provisions:

1. Condemning the intentional use of unconventional arms against civilian populations;

2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;

3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;

4. Obligating member states to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;

5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;

6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;

7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

In witness whereof the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present convention.

Voting Ends: Sun Nov 19 2006[/quote]
Reply
#2

FOR!
Reply
#3

FOR.

(Yay it's not a repeal!)
Reply
#4

one, two, three, FOR!
Reply
#5

NO. Kill this thing using unconventional weapons, please.

Banning disarmament resolutions is definitely worse than a repeal...
Reply
#6

CeoranaNov 15 2006, 08:16 PM NO. Kill this thing using unconventional weapons, please.

Banning disarmament resolutions is definitely worse than a repeal... [/quote]
I think I mis-read or somehow skipped number 7 before. I don't like that part, I agree.

I'll have to vote AGAINST now.
Reply
#7

CeoranaNov 15 2006, 06:16 PM NO. Kill this thing using unconventional weapons, please.

Banning disarmament resolutions is definitely worse than a repeal... [/quote]
Exactly.

I've been debating a STRONG OPPOSITION to this resolution in the UN forum and encourage all IDU members to vote no.

Here is why:
Quote: 
7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.[/quote]

The last clause is a "blocker". Should this resolution pass, the UN will never again have the ability to even condemn the use of ANY weapon. The decision on what to use and on whom will solely reside in the hands of national "leaders".

If the 7th clause were deleted, I'd very likely support this resolution, but as it, I totally expect to see the other pre-existing global disarmament resolutions repealed should this pass.

I actually think we should seriously consider working on a conditional repeal *if* this passes, citing just clause 7. Naturally we should look to improving the rest of the resolution, but I'd also campaign for a replacement should a repeal pass.
O_O
Reply
#8

Mik, that may be an additional item we need to discuss as part of the idea to prepare a series of replacement proposals that was suggested a couple of weeks back.

Where would be want to discuss that idea in more depth? Suggestions?

Getting back on topic, how does clause 6 not create a unsolvable conflict with clause 2? it seems to be creating a Hobson's choice?
Reply
#9

NO, NO, NO and NO.. Sneaky little blocker... Im AGAINST.
Reply
#10

Against!! 7 killled it. :666: :protest: :protest: :protest: :protest:
Reply
#11

Since a couple of members were nice enough to encourage me to participate in discussions here even though Stolidia is not a UN member, I will.... Wink

The distinguished gentleman from Mikitivity is quite correct. Clause 7 of this proposal is an absolute blocker against any meaningful legislation by the NSUN in the field of arms control. The decision to put it in the "Global Disarmament" category was a clever one designed to garner the votes of those who did not carefully read Clause 7. The decision by the moderators to allow it to remain there is unfortunate--to put it as nicely as I can.

Our sister nation, Ausserland, has publicly committed itself to support of a proposal with the effect of Clause 7 removed, if this one fails. Clause 1 is pablum. Clause 2 is good. Clauses 3 through 5 are alright. Clause 6 was written by someone who has no understanding of chemical warfare. (Our chemical countermeasures experts chuckled when they read it.) But it's harmless, since it simply "encourages" and would not, in itself, allow production, deployment, or use.

Should this proposal fail, as we sincerely hope it will, we will be more than happy to assist with the drafting of a solid, reasonable substitute, if desired.

:trtl:
Reply
#12

Like Stolidia, I too would support a substitute version of this with clause 7 removed. I would also suggest the removal of 6 because, as Stolidia has pointed out, it reflects a certain naivet? about the nature of chemical weapons.
Reply
#13

Franixco, good to see you here again. It's been a while, hasn't it? Or has it just been that our paths haven't crossed lately? Wink
Reply
#14

GrosseschnauzerNov 16 2006, 03:22 PMFranixco, good to see you here again. It's been a while, hasn't it? Or has it just been that our paths haven't crossed lately? Wink[/quote]
I've been around, haven't posted here as much as I should though. I'll try to check in more often
Reply
#15

Noting the discussion above, I'm against. I find it interesting that we now have the same tactics used by the US congress; Take a bill that most people want and tack on something outrageous hoping it will pass. I wish we could institue some sort of line item veto for situations like this.

Funny because by clause 7 I was figuring I had the general feel of this resolution and thought I should be in support. When I read it, clause 7 didn't seem to fit and I was glad to see others confirming for me that it was bad. What I worry about is everyone else who just casually reads it and votes for will result in an unnessisary repeal campaign.

Ah, the joys of politics.
Reply
#16

The UN floor vote on this closes tomorrow, With the current response on the poll 0-7-3, the vote will be cast AGAINST the measure.
Reply
#17

Quote: The resolution "Unconventional Arms Accord" was defeated 8,798 votes to 4,536.[/quote]
Reply
#18

*rejoicing*

:pisang:
Reply
#19

So enough people actually read it. There's hope for our NS democracy.
Reply
#20

Federation of DisjunctionNov 20 2006, 10:47 AM So enough people actually read it. There's hope for our NS democracy. [/quote]
OOC:

You're gonna love this, FoD... Wink

Before this came to a vote, I figured it would pass in a walk. I was really surprised to see it struggling. So I waddled around a few RMBs and region forums to see what was going on.

The intent was to stuff the blocker down in the last clause, so the people who were pro-disarmament wouldn't see that and vote for it. And I figure that happened. But... I also saw quite a few posts by people who were anti-disarmament, opposing the proposal. They saw the category and read the first clauses and voted against. They actually said things like: "NO! A nation should be able to have whatever weapons they need to defend themselves!" :lol:
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)