[Defeated] International Arms Trading

by **Barbossa** » Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:32 am

Acknowledging that without proper oversight and effective regulation, by police, military and customs authorities, arms transfers may be diverted to the black market, hostile entities or unauthorized end users and can increase the potential for violations of national or international law and human rights.

The World Assembly hereby;

Article 1 – Definitions & Clarifications

1.1 Defines an arm for the purpose of this resolution as any device designed and manufactured or otherwise actualized with its primary purpose being to inflict damage or harm to living beings, systems or structures or any item which has been modified to meet this standard. This shall include arms or ammunition with the capability to be fired, launched or delivered by other arms as well as parts and components that provide the capability to be assembled into the arms.

1.2 Clarifies that this resolution shall neither apply to movements of arms by or on behalf of a nation provided that the arms remain under that nation's control nor impact on the right of nations to develop national laws concerning arms and their ownership.

1.3 Further Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be constructed as an attempt to nationalize international arms trading or to prohibit nations from enacting stricter national laws in regard to arms trading.

Article 2 – Risk Assessment

2.1 Requires nations, prior to authorizing an arms export, to conduct an risk assessment, considering if probable cause exists that said arms may be:

Used to perpetrate or enable breaches or violations of domestic laws in either the exporting or importing nations or any nations during transit.
Used to perpetrate or enable breaches or violations of international law.
Diverted from the intended recipients.

2.2 Requires that if the exporting nation determines probable cause exists of any of the above consequences after conducting this assessment, it shall not authorize the export.

2.3 Requires importing nations to provide any relevant documentation regarding end use or end user details requested by the exporting nation if said request is within the framework of previously established international laws.

Article 3 – Arms Markings

3.1 Requires nations to apply a unique, recognizable and traceable national marking upon all individual arms certified for export from their nation and to submit said marking for registration with the Arms Trading Oversight Committee.

Article 4 - Arms Trading Oversight Committee (ATOC)

4.1 Establishes the ATOC empowers it to;

4.1.1 Operate in accordance with previously established international laws, undertaking not to procure or release any information that would violate the protection of privacy or national security interests protected by said laws.
4.1.2 Obtain annually from each nation a report for the preceding year detailing all authorized or actual international arms trades undertaken under their jurisdiction.
4.1.3 Obtain the completed export risk assessment files from all arms exporting nations for each authorized, actual or rejected international arms trade.
4.1.4 Make all reports available upon request by national governments.
4.1.5 Obtain records from national governments of all recovered illegal arms trades.
4.1.6 Maintain a register of all unique national arms markings.
4.1.7 Arbitrate any disputes arising from this resolution.

Link to submitted proposal here

I know this has been attempted numerous times over the years by many nations. Many thanks to those who have given permission to use their ideas in the creation of this work. Nothing is used without prior consent

by **Grays Harbor** » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:29 am

Hnh. This doesn't sound too onerous, and is actually fairly well written. We may even be able to support it. Who knew.

We'll give it a more thorough read later today.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:40 pm

Opposed. Nations are already disallowed from assisting nations in perpetuating genocide as I know. As for the rest...

... into the potential of the concerned arms being used to perpetrate or enable; genocide/ ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, acts of gender-based violence or acts of violence children, war crimes, crimes of hatred, religiously motivated crimes, systemic or organized crime, actions which may impair humanitarian efforts in the receiving state, any other violations of international laws or where a significant risk exists that said arms may be diverted from the intended recipients.

Anything not already banned, such as genocide, isn't really our concern. We don't particularly care if our weapons end up in the hands of organized crime circles. That is the responsibility of the authority with jurisdiction over said crime circle.

by **Barbossa** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:10 am

Grays Harbor wrote:Hnh. This doesn't sound too onerous, and is actually fairly well written. We may even be able to support it. Who knew.

We'll give it a more thorough read later today.

Thanks Grays Harbor, any suggestions would be very much appreciated

Separatist Peoples wrote:Nations are already disallowed from assisting nations in perpetuating genocide as I know.

I guess you are talking about the Convention Against Genocide which states that

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities within their borders.

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

It would be a big stretch to say that a nation exporting arms with no knowledge of the end user or requirement to engage in any kind of assessment would be knowingly guilty of breaching any of these. Does failure to regulate arms trades and attempt to ensure end user use of said arms make a nation complicit if the end user commits crimes against humanity. As it stands now they would be ignorant and morally culpable, yes, but not necessarily complicit. As you yourself have later stated under current legislation what nations do with the arms sold to them could be considered no concern for the exporter, regardless of their use.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Anything not already banned, such as genocide, isn't really our concern. We don't particularly care if our weapons end up in the hands of organized crime circles. That is the responsibility of the authority with jurisdiction over said crime circle.

The fact is once weapons are diverted into criminal/ terrorist or the other illegal operations I have listed neither you nor any other nation will have control over them. There is no guarantee that the weapons will not cycle back into your nation. A terrorist attack on your cities using weapons manufactured in your own nation, exported without concern for the end user, their diversion or use, may certainly be a cause for concern. It could be in the mutual benefits of each nation for a degree of regulation over arms trades.

Furthermore there is a moral argument to be made that preventing to the best of your ability genocide/ ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, acts gender-based violence or acts of violence children, war crimes, crimes of hatred, religiously motivated crimes, acts of terrorism, systemic or organized crime, actions which may impair humanitarian efforts in the receiving state and any other violations of international laws committed with arms from your nation may be a good thing.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:04 am

Barbossa wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Nations are already disallowed from assisting nations in perpetuating genocide as I know.

I guess you are talking about the Convention Against Genocide which states that

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities within their borders.

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

It would be a big stretch to say that a nation exporting arms with no knowledge of the end user or requirement to engage in any kind of assessment would be knowingly guilty of breaching any of these. Does failure to regulate arms trades and attempt to ensure end user use of said arms make a nation complicit if the end user commits crimes against humanity. As it stands now they would be ignorant and morally culpable, yes, but not necessarily complicit. As you yourself have later stated under current legislation what nations do with the arms sold to them could be considered no concern for the exporter, regardless of their use.

OOC: Providing the weapons with reasonable knowledge of the intent to commit crimes with them at a local level of law enforcement is enough to construe culpability in the Real World. I'm not sure why it wouldn't work similarly here in the WA. However, I can't put a real life example IC, so here it stays.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Anything not already banned, such as genocide, isn't really our concern. We don't particularly care if our weapons end up in the hands of organized crime circles. That is the responsibility of the authority with jurisdiction over said crime circle.

The fact is once weapons are diverted into criminal/ terrorist or the other illegal operations I have listed neither you nor any other nation will have control over them. There is no guarantee that the weapons will not cycle back into your nation. A terrorist attack on your cities using weapons manufactured in your own nation, exported without concern for the end user, their diversion or use, may certainly be a cause for concern. It could be in the mutual benefits of each nation for a degree of regulation over arms trades.

Furthermore there is a moral argument to be made that preventing to the best of your ability genocide/ ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, acts gender-based violence or acts of violence children, war crimes, crimes of hatred, religiously motivated crimes, acts of terrorism, systemic or organized crime, actions which may impair humanitarian efforts in the receiving state and any other violations of international laws committed with arms from your nation may be a good thing.

Don't bother with a moral argument. Provide facts, and you'll make progress with me. The guilt for crimes which are committed with Dominion arms fall solely on the shoulders of the perpetrators. As it stands, if we sell weapons to a terrorist organization, our own security is good enough to prevent those weapons from being used to any great affect against ourselves. My only concern is the well-being of the C.D.S.P. Arms Manufacturing industry, which will be hindered unacceptably by any international regulations.

by **Barbossa** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:49 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Providing the weapons with reasonable knowledge of the intent to commit crimes with them at a local level of law enforcement is enough to construe culpability in the Real World. I'm not sure why it wouldn't work similarly here in the WA. However, I can't put a real life example IC, so here it stays.

Since you are rejecting installing a system of regulation for arms exports how can you then claim to still have reasonable knowledge of an intent to commit crimes with said weapons. If you are advocating a free trade in arms how can you then claim to be able to control their destination or end use. If I purposely sold weapons to nation x, knowing they would be used to commit genocide it is of course it is a irrepressible action which may be covered by that convention however if I simply have no export control on weapons and no laws concerning arms exports or end users then how can I be held accountable when I have no idea where they are going or what they will be used for. Failure to inform yourself of the arms end use is not covered elsewhere hence the need for this draft.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Don't bother with a moral argument. Provide facts, and you'll make progress with me. The guilt for crimes which are committed with Dominion arms fall solely on the shoulders of the perpetrators. As it stands, if we sell weapons to a terrorist organization, our own security is good enough to prevent those weapons from being used to any great affect against ourselves. My only concern is the well-being of the C.D.S.P. Arms Manufacturing industry, which will be hindered unacceptably by any international regulations.

Right, your nation is so strong that it is impervious to any significant terrorist attacks or any misuse of weapons. Good on ya :palm:

The importing nation provides you with the end user information, how may I ask is it too much for you to add a risk assessment using that information to your standard export requirements?

The moral argument is important to many people and nations and can not be ignored.

I also offered you a factual non moral response concerning the dangers of diverted arms or arms in the hands of terror groups or other illicit groups, which to many may be equally or more important, but you have ignored that with a God Mod style style argument, so, yea, great, thanks for your input.

by **Faikliren** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:35 am

Seems well written, good job Barbossa!

by **The Scientific States** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:05 am

Looks fairly well written, I like the idea, you have my Support, however I would make sure it's not to long. I feel as it may be above the allowed word count(I believe it's 3500 words)

by **Barbossa** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:11 am

Faikliren wrote:Seems well written, good job Barbossa!

Thanks Faikliren, now I fully expect it to be torn apart

The Scientific States wrote:Looks fairly well written, I like the idea, you have my Support, however I would make sure it's not to long. I feel as it may be below the allowed word count(I believe it's 3500 words)

Cheers, I know I am well over on the word count, I am hoping I can trim it down during drafting

by **The Scientific States** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:16 am

Barbossa wrote:
Faikliren wrote:Seems well written, good job Barbossa!

Thanks Faikliren, now I fully expect it to be torn apart

The Scientific States wrote:Looks fairly well written, I like the idea, you have my Support, however I would make sure it's not to long. I feel as it may be below the allowed word count(I believe it's 3500 words)

Cheers, I know I am well over on the word count, I am hoping I can trim it down during drafting

Sounds good. And in that sentence above, I said below instead of above, my brain is just having one of those days.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:53 pm

Barbossa wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Providing the weapons with reasonable knowledge of the intent to commit crimes with them at a local level of law enforcement is enough to construe culpability in the Real World. I'm not sure why it wouldn't work similarly here in the WA. However, I can't put a real life example IC, so here it stays.

Since you are rejecting installing a system of regulation for arms exports how can you then claim to still have reasonable knowledge of an intent to commit crimes with said weapons. If you are advocating a free trade in arms how can you then claim to be able to control their destination or end use. If I purposely sold weapons to nation x, knowing they would be used to commit genocide it is of course it is a irrepressible action which may be covered by that convention however if I simply have no export control on weapons and no laws concerning arms exports or end users then how can I be held accountable when I have no idea where they are going or what they will be used for. Failure to inform yourself of the arms end use is not covered elsewhere hence the need for this draft.

We don't have any claims to control their end use. We don't particularly care about their end use, and are not responsible for their use. You can't guarantee to a accurate enough degree as to how those weapons will be used, and a piece of paper is hardly irrevocable truth, especially when dealing with entities outside of the authority of the World Assembly. All I'm seeing here is more unnecessary bureaucracy.

I am confident in the C.D.S.P.'s ability to protect itself from threats. Anything else simply isn't our problem. Thus why we oppose this, morality entirely aside. Being, essentially, isolationist, the moral concerns of what other nations do is irrelevant, but having others' moral compass shoved down our legislative branch, as I recall some others stating, is not something we enjoy.

[/quote]

Separatist Peoples wrote:Don't bother with a moral argument. Provide facts, and you'll make progress with me. The guilt for crimes which are committed with Dominion arms fall solely on the shoulders of the perpetrators. As it stands, if we sell weapons to a terrorist organization, our own security is good enough to prevent those weapons from being used to any great affect against ourselves. My only concern is the well-being of the C.D.S.P. Arms Manufacturing industry, which will be hindered unacceptably by any international regulations.

Right, your nation is so strong that it is impervious to any significant terrorist attacks or any misuse of weapons. Good on ya :palm:

The importing nation provides you with the end user information, how may I ask is it too much for you to add a risk assessment using that information to your standard export requirements?

The moral argument is important to many people and nations and can not be ignored.

I also offered you a factual non moral response concerning the dangers of diverted arms or arms in the hands of terror groups or other illicit groups, which to many may be equally or more important, but you have ignored that with a God Mod style style argument, so, yea, great, thanks for your input.[/quote]

OOC: What godmod style argument? I said that my nation's security is enough to prevent this. I should think that it was obvious that that includes reasonable statistical tolerances.
But hey, lets look at the real world, where a robust counter-terrorism system does prevent major terrorist attacks, shall we? Since counter-terrorist organizations were formed and funded in the post-9/11, 1st world nations of the world, how many major terrorist attacks have happened in those nations? Is it really so unreasonable to suspect that nations in NS are equally capable of protecting themselves? Don't throw around the claim of godmod so easily, especially when you don't think it through enough to back it up with any real logic.

by **Barbossa** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:54 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: What godmod style argument? I said that my nation's security is enough to prevent this. I should think that it was obvious that that includes reasonable statistical tolerances.
But hey, lets look at the real world, where a robust counter-terrorism system does prevent major terrorist attacks, shall we? Since counter-terrorist organizations were formed and funded in the post-9/11, 1st world nations of the world, how many major terrorist attacks have happened in those nations? Is it really so unreasonable to suspect that nations in NS are equally capable of protecting themselves? Don't throw around the claim of godmod so easily, especially when you don't think it through enough to back it up with any real logic.

Is that even a serious question. The fact that you have just dismissed terror attacks in most of the world as irrelevant, concerning yourself only with the first world, is wrong in many levels. No nation can prevent terror attacks. To claim your nation can through some all powerful police force is ridiculous. Maybe some attacks can be prevented and the numbers reduced but no nation can prevent all terrorism and is clearly a godmod and not something even worth debating.

You claim their is no logic to this. Ok I will bite, and lets pretend for a second we ignore the hundreds or thousands of terror attacks committed in poorer nations across the middle east, India, Pakistan, Israel etc and focus only on your first world nations. The answer is still that there have been numerous attacks. Since you have brought up RL here goes (thanks to Wikipedia and other websites I cant remember). Not all had fatalities but all have some aspect terror. And this does not include deaths from any of the other areas I have covered. Accepted many of these are small scale attacks with a few causalities but a few is still too many and if you can look past the first world and research terror attacks on the rest of the globe particularly attacks in the middle east then the scale will massively increase well into the thousands and tens of thousands dead.

Now that that’s out of the way this has little to do with my proposal , I would be happy to debate it with you somewhere else but not in this thread.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:02 pm

Barbossa wrote:Is that even a serious question. The fact that you have just dismissed terror attacks in most of the world as irrelevant, concerning yourself only with the first world, is wrong in many levels. No nation can prevent terror attacks. To claim your nation can through some all powerful police force is ridiculous. Maybe some attacks can be prevented and the numbers reduced but no nation can prevent all terrorism and is clearly a godmod and not something even worth debating.

You claim their is no logic to this. Ok I will bite, and lets pretend for a second we ignore the hundreds or thousands of terror attacks committed in poorer nations across the middle east, India, Pakistan, Israel etc and focus only on your first world nations. The answer is still that there have been numerous attacks. Since you have brought up RL here goes (thanks to Wikipedia and other websites I cant remember). Not all had fatalities but all have some aspect terror. And this does not include deaths from any of the other areas I have covered. Accepted many of these are small scale attacks with a few causalities but a few is still too many and if you can look past the first world and research terror attacks on the rest of the globe particularly attacks in the middle east then the scale will massively increase well into the thousands and tens of thousands dead.

Now that that’s out of the way this has little to do with my proposal , I would be happy to debate it with you somewhere else but not in this thread.

OOC: The CDSP is a first world nation by RP and by considerations given by game stats. So only first world countries matter in terms of this facet of debate. No, no nation can. But they do a damn good job preventing organized and large scale terror strikes, which is what this proposal would seek to limit. Domestic terrorism would be an entirely different issue, primarily because it isnt international. Now, I'd love to see how many large-scale terrorist strikes occur in first world countries, and I'd like to know why its so hard to believe identical systems wouldnt work in this game. So far, you're the only one making nonsensical and illogical arguments.

Please note that,despite your exhaustive list, I am referring to large-scale terrorist attacks. Your arms treaty isn't going to make a dent in the style of small-scale terror attacks. For the sake of this argument, I don't give a damn about poor nations. My argument against your farcical "godmod" claim concerns itself with a modernized nation like the one I RP as.

IC: Fortunately, there is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through that we see, so we'll happily support this now.

by **Barbossa** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:24 pm

I give up. Your forces are obviously just wonderful and all singing and dancing

Just a suggestion though. Did you notise the big DRAFT in the title? This is not a proposal but a draft which I am sure has flaws. The aim of the drafting process is the address them. Arguments about your terrorism proof nation and cryptic comments about loopholes do not help improve a draft in any way.

by **Chester Pearson** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:24 pm

Barbossa wrote:I give up. Your forces are obviously just wonderful and all singing and dancing

Just a suggestion though. Did you notise the big DRAFT in the title? This is not a proposal but a draft which I am sure has flaws. The aim of the dragging process is the address them. Arguments about your terrorism proof nation and cryptic comments about loopholes do not help improve a draft in any way.

Welcome to the pit. You can't please everybody.

by **Libraria and Ausitoria** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:14 am

The only real problem with this draft is that it's far too long for anyone except an unfortunate lunatic holed up in this asylum to read it.

E.g. the following:

Barbossa wrote:Defines an arm for the purpose of this resolution as any device used with the primary purpose and in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings or structures which remains in use by the exporting nation's armed or security forces, whether employed or contracted.

Could safely be:
Defines an arm as an item designed or designated for use as a weapon.
We are sure that other clauses could be similarly simplified.

Instructs nations that if, after conducting this assessment the exporting nation determines that there is an risk of any of the negative consequences listed above, they shall not authorize the export.

We feel this section is rather too onerous: there is always a risk that a dinosaur will come crashing through the ceiling, steal the weapon, and kill a load of innocent tourists from another planet. A very small risk, but a risk nonetheless.

If you think this risk is unreasonably unlikely, you're quite right! We would therefore suggest that you make it 'reasonable risk'.

Otherwise, an excellent proposal, particularly if this your first.

by **Grays Harbor** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:40 am

Alright, lets break this down...

Barbossa wrote:International Security - A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Strength: Significant

That sounds about right to me.

Acknowledges that without proper oversight arms transfers may be diverted to the black market, hostile entities or unauthorized end users and can increase the potential for violations of international laws and human rights.

This has always been a concern of ours, so, yes, we agree with this assessment.

Notes that proper and effective regulation of arms transfers can reduce and possibly eradicate the illegal transfer and trade in arms.

OK, potentially reduce, yes. Eliminate? Probably not as those determined to circumvent laws will always find a way. The best we can hope for is to make it more difficult and more expensive for them to do so which may have a result of reducing.

Accepts that increased tracking and regulation of arm shipments will require a similar increase in military and/or police budgets.

Agreed

Defines an arm for the purpose of this resolution as any device used with the primary purpose and in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings or structures which remains in use by the exporting nation's armed or security forces, whether employed or contracted.

Hmm. Not quite happy with this definition. It needs work.

Further Defines a transfer for the purpose of this resolution as any trade comprising export, import, transit, transport, trans-shipment or brokering of arms.

Pretty generic, but covers the subject well enough I suppose.

The World Assembly,

Respects the right of all nations to individual or collective self-defense, to engage in peacekeeping operations and to acquire arms in fulfilment of these rights.

Seems a bit superfluous, but not overly onerous

Acknowledges the political, economic and commercial interests of nations trading in arms

See above

Clarifies that this resolution shall not apply to movements of arms by, or on behalf of, a nation provided that the arms remain under that nation's ~~ownership~~.

I would replace "ownership" with "Control".

Requires nations engaged in arms trading conduct an Export Risk-Assessment as part of its standard export process, prior to authorizing the export of arms from territories under its jurisdiction, into the potential of the concerned arms being used to perpetrate or enable; genocide/ ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, acts gender-based violence or acts of violence children, war crimes, crimes of hatred, religiously motivated crimes, acts of terrorism, systemic or organized crime, actions which may impair humanitarian efforts in the receiving state, any other violations of international laws or where a significant risk exists that said arms may be diverted from the intended recipients.

This seems overly verbose. I would remove all but the initial sentence.

Instructs nations that if, after conducting this assessment the exporting nation determines that there is an risk of any of the negative consequences listed above, they shall not authorize the export.

I suppose this has to be included, but it seems that this should be implied in that "significant risk = don't sell them to that entity"

Obligates nations to furnish paperwork with all approved arms transfers detailing the specifics items and quantities contained in the shipment and its intended destination.

Furnish the paperwork to who?

Obliges nations to apply a unique, recognizable and traceable national marking upon all individual arms certified for export from their nation.

Overkill. Serial numbers and manufacturing marks should be sufficient.

Requires importing nations to provide all appropriate and relevant information to the exporting nation, to assist in its Export Risk-Assessment. Such measures should include end use or end user details.

Provide what information?

Requires nations to establish and maintain a national control system (NCS) to regulate and record the the transfer of the following items to or from territories under their jurisdiction; arms, munitions with the capability to be fired, launched or delivered by arms, parts and components that provide the capability to be assembled into the arms

I understand the sentiments behind this, but it seem a bit excessive.

Obligates nations to detail in their NCS measures to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for arms. Such measures may include requiring brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering.

This would appear to include anybody who sells weapons, to include hunting gear and personal defense weapons. Overly broad.

Requires nations involved in the transfer of arms to detail measures in their NCS to prevent the diversion of weapons and detailing appropriate responses to a detection of a arms trade diversion.

Unenforceable. Given the many different circumstances involved in each arms transfer, this detailed assessment for each and every transfer could potentially run to several thousands of pages, thus rendering itself useless and valid only for scapegoating should something occur.

Instructs nations to record all recovered diverted and/or illegal arms transfers in their territories.

Redundant. It should be fairly common knowledge that criminal activities will indeed be recorded by the appropriate agencies. To require more reporting of the exact same thing would be pointless duplication of effort.

Encourages nations to cooperate and in good faith provide information sharing protocols in an effort to prevent arms diversions and illegal arms trading.

Not overly onerous, but it does appear to be an empty "feelgood" platitude.

Establishes the World Assembly Arms Trading Committee and empowers it to; obtain annually from each nation a report for the preceding year detailing all authorized or actual arms trades undertaken under their jurisdiction, to obtain the Export Risk Assessment of the exporting nation into the each arms transfer under their jurisdiction, to maintain a register of the National Control System of each nation, to make all reports available upon request by national governments, to obtain records from national governments of all recovered illegal arms trades and to arbitrate any disputes arising from this resolution.

Not disagreeing with the purpose of this committee, but I believe the required info may be excessive. It should be limited to military grade weaponry because as it is written it would appear they would require that detailed info on Grandma Jenkins buying a pistol to shoot at varmints be included.

As stated previously, we agree overall with the concept of this, however, we do believe much refinement will be necessary prior to submission.

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:35 am

The Scientific States wrote:I would make sure it's not to long. I feel as it may be above the allowed word count(I believe it's 3500 words)

OOC: 3'500 characters, including spaces.

by **Araraukar** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:19 am

Bears Armed wrote:
The Scientific States wrote:I would make sure it's not to long. I feel as it may be above the allowed word count(I believe it's 3500 words)

OOC: 3'500 characters, including spaces.

OOC: Spaces and code, I believe.

by **Charax Stark** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:28 pm

The Eldritch Delegation applauds the research and effort that has gone in to the creation of this draft, and give it our Support.

by **Auralia** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:31 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC: 3'500 characters, including spaces.

OOC: Spaces and code, I believe.

I think it excludes code, actually.

by **The Dauphinity of Cognito** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:34 pm

I approve, absolutely required, everybody pleaseAPPROVE

by **Grays Harbor** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:52 pm

The Dauphinity of Cognito wrote:I approve, absolutely required, everybody pleaseAPPROVE

It is generally considered good form to explain why you approve of something instead of just spouting off like a barking seal.

by **Barbossa** » Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:57 am

Chester Pearson wrote:Welcome to the pit. You can't please everybody.

I will get used to it I guess (or hope)

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:The only real problem with this draft is that it's far too long for anyone except an unfortunate lunatic holed up in this asylum to read it.

E.g. the following:
Barbossa wrote:Defines an arm for the purpose of this resolution as any device used with the primary purpose and in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings or structures which remains in use by the exporting nation's armed or security forces, whether employed or contracted.

Could safely be:
Defines an arm as an item designed or designated for use as a weapon.
We are sure that other clauses could be similarly simplified.

Instructs nations that if, after conducting this assessment the exporting nation determines that there is an risk of any of the negative consequences listed above, they shall not authorize the export.

We feel this section is rather too onerous: there is always a risk that a dinosaur will come crashing through the ceiling, steal the weapon, and kill a load of innocent tourists from another planet. A very small risk, but a risk nonetheless.

If you think this risk is unreasonably unlikely, you're quite right! We would therefore suggest that you make it 'reasonable risk'.

Otherwise, an excellent proposal, particularly if this your first.

Thanks Libraria, Fully agreed that the main problem is that its too complicated to read through and needs to be really simplified. I think I got too wrapped up in it so its good to get other suggestions.

I had some problems with this definition to make it thorough enough but not so much that primary civilian items were included by error.

My other one was "Defining an arm for the purpose of this resolution as the weapons and supplies of war or law enforcement with which a military/ police unit or group of units may be equipped or which they may utilize, excluding items primarily considered of a civilian or of a non combat/ non law enforcement nature."

I will change all the risk statements to either reasonable or significant risk.

Bears Armed wrote:snip

Araraukar wrote:snip

Auralia wrote:snip

Thanks for the advise, only 1,000 words to chop out then. Just as well I did not post the original draft

The Dauphinity of Cognito wrote:I approve, absolutely required, everybody pleaseAPPROVE

Charax Stark wrote:The Eldritch Delegation applauds the research and effort that has gone in to the creation of this draft, and give it our Support.

Thank you for your support however if you can give me some suggestions on things which work or don’t work to improve the draft it would be really appreciated

Grays Harbor wrote:snip

Good points and I agree with nearly all of them. I will post a new draft above which will address most of them . I think I only disagree on the national marking on arms as not all nations automatically include serial number etc.

I am not sure about the arms definitions and will include 2 suggestions in the next draft and see. Of course the suggestions for everyone else have been taken on board. The last clause was a suggestion to make enforcement and compliance more effective. Its still over on word count but 400 down, 600 more words to chop in the next round.

by **Araraukar** » Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:33 am

Barbossa wrote:Its still over on word count but 400 down, 600 more words to chop in the next round.

It's not word count, it's mark count.

For example: This sentence is six words long. But it's 32 marks long (spaces and punctuation).

[Defeated] International Arms Trading

[Defeated] International Arms Trading

Who is online