[hirota]

Little time to discuss, so pasting here for feedback.

Not thought of title yet.

Utterly condemming the intentional slaughter of innocent civilians as a heinous and contemptible act irrespective of the means and justifications.

Noting the importance of national defence, and the need to protect one's own nation. However noting that this is not justification for the slaughter of innocents;

Utterly condemning the use of chemical or biological weapons to harm innocents;

Determined to prevent the death of innocents in conflict or peacetime as far as possible;

Defining unconventional weapons as munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of permanently harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians;

Defining conventional weapons as devices which do not rely upon a chemical, biological or nuclear payload;

Defining a civilian as a person who is (1) not a member of a military, paramilitary or law-enforcement organization of a nation, or (2) a member of such an organization, but not under arms or performing military duties or functions

Mandates member states refrain from deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional or conventional weaponry;

Mandates member states take all measures neccessary to criminalise the act of deliberately employing conventional or unconventional weapons against civilians, irrespective of motive or justification

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 any part of this legislation, irrespective of national laws protecting those who violate this legislation

Permitting the development of non-lethal chemical arms designed specifically to mitigate harm to civilians, and serve as viable alternatives to other forms of chemical and biological warfare;

[Eisophca]

Looks good. But I'd strike the OBLIGATING clause, since we're talking about military targetting, right?

[Mikitivity]

Minor things:
Utterly condemming --> Condemning

There is a typo as written and usually less = more. If you can always find a way to include more white space in a document, more players are likely to read the resolution from start to finish.

I'd talk to Hack about making a reference to Civil Rights Post War, basically suggesting that in the past the UN has been concerned about civilian loss of life. He might view that as a "House of Cards", but I personally like a few back references -- it also may help say, "Hey, I've looked at what we did in the past."

[Mikitivity]

Would you mind if I copied this into word and gave it a complete rewrite? I think it holds promise, but I want to number the operating clauses and monkey around with the preamble.

[hirota]

MikitivityNov 20 2006, 02:41 AM Would you mind if I copied this into word and gave it a complete rewrite? I think it holds promise, but I want to number the operating clauses and monkey around with the preamble. [/quote]
Go ahead

[Quintessence of Dust]

Whilst I appreciate that this is very much a work in progress, I have taken the liberty of referring it to analysts from the Quintessence of Dust State Department. Discussions at the top-level Select Committee on International Relations have yielded a number of comments, and I now relay the comments of the Committee Chair. We hope these may be of use to those involved in the drafting of this document, which in my opinion is of significant promise.

-- Secretary of State James Dwight

Quote: Mr. Secretary,

Regarding the proposed resolution Unconventional Arms Mk. 2, the Committee first wishes to note that the notion of limiting civilian casualties - too often brushed away beneath the abhorrent veil of 'collateral damage' - is one we squarely identify with. At the same time, we recognise the importance of rigour in the preparation of any legislation in this field given its obvious repercussions for state security and the importance of eliminating opportunities for abusive regimes to dodge their humanitarian obligations.

The major question we arrived at concerned the focus on 'unconventional arms' and the repeated delineation of conventional and unconventional arms. The reasons for this is unclear, given states' obligations regarding the specific weapons types are not delineated. We wondered at the point of making such a distinction, if both weapons types are - rightly, I would hasten to add - to be restricted from use against civilians. On a more technical note, the definitions themselves are problematic in that nuclear weaponry is excluded from both: if this is part of a deliberate attempt to permit the use of nuclear weaponry against civilian populations, we find it unjustified by the text of the resolution, and unjustifiable in any event.

We express further confusion as to the verbosity of its second mandate. The criminalisation of war crimes is a matter of reasonably straightforward legislative actions: quite what other 'means' would be we are unsure.

Finally, we are concerned by the final clause, which appears oddly composed and entirely tangential to the rest of the resolution. Specifically, there appears no justification for singling out chemical arms, as opposed to conventional weaponry performing a similar task. In any case, the effectiveness of such materials is extremely questionable, at which juncture we return to puzzlement of the inclusion of this within the otherwise straightforward - its unnecessary legalism notwithstanding - document.

It is thereby with regret that I must advise you not to offer our nation's support for this resolution at its present time. Fragmented in nature, confusing in composition, and actively dangerous in several omissions and errors, we cannot believe it would stand as the requisite bulwark against the murder of civilians. I do however note the Committee's hope that a simplified and effective modification can be arrived at, to address the important issue.

-- Chairperson Susanne Chambers[/quote]