09-04-2005, 08:40 AM
While the Federation appreciates the reasons for the reapeal and lack of clarity within the original resolution, the Federation has threereasons for intending to vote AGAINST this repeal.
1) The need for an effective resolution banning chemical weapons has a greater public interest than allowing the use of "minor" chemical substances such as pepper spray, and the damage to human life is greater if the resolution is repealed than continuing to be endorsed.
2) There is no definition of "chemical weapon" within the resolution which leaves it to the reasonable definition of the courts/ruling bodies within member states. Thus the definition of chemical weapon in taking into account the spirit and context of the resolution is likely to intend that chemical weapons are indeed;
- weapons, made from chemicals, with the intent to cause mass harm, distress, death, or terror, in a single execution of the weapon.
Thus, quoting the resolution, banning;
Quote: all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.[/quote]
The intent is clearly based on weapons of mass harm, and the weapons noted in the repeal are thus not covered by the resolution.
3) The passing of the United Nations Security Act only allows nations to create weapons to defend themselves subject to CURRENT resolutions. This would make a replacement resolution problematic.
As a result DataGenesis votes AGAINST the repeal.
1) The need for an effective resolution banning chemical weapons has a greater public interest than allowing the use of "minor" chemical substances such as pepper spray, and the damage to human life is greater if the resolution is repealed than continuing to be endorsed.
2) There is no definition of "chemical weapon" within the resolution which leaves it to the reasonable definition of the courts/ruling bodies within member states. Thus the definition of chemical weapon in taking into account the spirit and context of the resolution is likely to intend that chemical weapons are indeed;
- weapons, made from chemicals, with the intent to cause mass harm, distress, death, or terror, in a single execution of the weapon.
Thus, quoting the resolution, banning;
Quote: all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.[/quote]
The intent is clearly based on weapons of mass harm, and the weapons noted in the repeal are thus not covered by the resolution.
3) The passing of the United Nations Security Act only allows nations to create weapons to defend themselves subject to CURRENT resolutions. This would make a replacement resolution problematic.
As a result DataGenesis votes AGAINST the repeal.