[Grosseschnauzer]

Quote: Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #107


Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: UN Resolution #107: Ban Chemical Weapons (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the sentiment against chemical weapons, which can cause large-scale destruction, present in "Ban Chemical Weapons",

NOTING, HOWEVER the precedent of the UN to allow citizens in member nations a reasonable level of self-protection, as well as the precedent for member nations to encourage the preservation of order and lawfulness within their boundaries,

RECOGNIZING that tear gas and smoke ordnance, which are chemical ?weapons? used by some nations to justly enforce the law and preserve order, are banned by ?Ban Chemical Weapons?,

RECOGNIZING that mace and pepper sprays, which are vital chemical mechanisms for innocent civilians in defending themselves from dangerous criminals (especially in cases of robbery, assault, and rape), are banned by ?Ban Chemical Weapons?,

REALIZING "Ban Chemical Weapons" unfortunately makes no differentiation between war-time chemical weapons and peace-time chemical ?weapons?, affecting them all,

GRIEVING the loss to police enforcement and persons in urban areas (especially women in urban areas) of these vital chemical tools for law enforcement and self-protection:

REPEALS "Ban Chemical Weapons".

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 7 2005 [/quote]

[Antrium]

Antrium is against this proposal. We agree with the part about mace and pepper spray, but we fear that if this was repealed, there is a possibility that there would be no proposal to replace it, which would legalize chemical weapons. We are against any proposal that allows chemical or nuclear weapons.

[Lawtonia]

Lawtonia agrees with Antrium. Although Mace and pepper/capsicum spray may be a necessary evil in maintaining public order, Lawtonia is not willing to pay the price of having chemical weapons loose in the world in order to have them.

[Sober Thought]

AGAINST, but aware that some of the points were valid and should have been addressed in the original resolution. I would be willing to switch if there were a reasonable prospect that a more specific ban against gas warfare were prepared.

The fact repeal proposals are being posted so soon after their original resolution was adopted suggests more care has to be taken. A good reason for a slightly more formalized UN writing assistance programme.

[Federalist]

Against, while the Commonwealth realizes the same points as already listed. Necessary precautions need to be taken to prevent nations from chemical weapons. Without a proposal to take its place outlining these changes and still banning VX, Musturd Gas, and these other weapons, we must keep the current law in place.

[DataGenesis]

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.

[Baranxtu]

Baranxtu votes AGAINST, agreeing with the already listed points and especially with DataGenesis, thinking that mace and other self-defense or riot control related chemical substances may still be produced and distributed (and just in case one could always start a "Kick to the Groin" advocating programme).

[Groot Gouda]

Whether peace or wartime, chemical weapons should not be used.

We are therefor against this repeal.

[Keeslandia]

The Ban is the appropriate policy. The Empire has voted against repeal.

[Malabra]

We too have voted against this repeal, and also agree with many of the points you and the repeal has talked about. We find the danger of chemical weapons too extreame to try to repeal before we mention that mace and other self-defense weapons can be used.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Since voting on this matter ends sometime on Wednesday, the region's vote will be cast on Tuesday.

[Antrium]

I telegrammed Powerhungry Chipmunks to get an endorsement for my proposal, and he sent me this (as well as an endorsement, regardless of whether you change your mind )

Quote: A largely overlooked fact is the fact that the original resolution the repeal is aimed towards did nothing to stop nations from using and possessing chemical weapons, which would be changed by Ausserland's draft of a replacement resolution. [/quote]

So there will be a replacement resolution. I haven't really made up my mind about whether I will change my vote, because there is a possibility that it won't pass. Just something I thought you should know.

[Groot Gouda]

To extend the resolution to include using chemical weapons does not require a repeal. Adding on previous resolution is still allowed IIRC.

So this repeal still isn't necessary.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Since the region's vote is so clear, an "AGAINST" vote will be cast today in accordance with the region's wishes.

[Antrium]

Groot GoudaSep 6 2005, 02:59 AM To extend the resolution to include using chemical weapons does not require a repeal. Adding on previous resolution is still allowed IIRC.

So this repeal still isn't necessary. [/quote]
Ah. Good point. My vote is unchanged.

[Antrium]

Sadly, the repeal has passed. But not by much. Hopefully that replacement will be approved.