[DEFEATED] Responsible Armaments Trading

[Frisbeeteria]

Responsible Armaments Trading

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Sciongrad

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

And to this end resolves;

1. The term "armament" shall be defined as military equipment, such as firearms, ammunition, and/or any other device that may possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

2. The term "transfer" shall be defined as the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, and/or non-state entities associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation;

3. The term "end-user certificate" shall be defined as an affidavit completed by the buyer of armaments subject to the provisions of this resolution which verifies that said buyer is the final recipient of the product;

4. All manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations shall be required to register with the relevant government(s) of the nation(s) in which they operate, and the terms of such a registration shall, at minimum, encompass the provisions of this resolution;

5. The export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, and/or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

6. The sale or transfer of armaments shall be prohibited if:

1. There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation,
   
2. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
   
3. The armaments are non-discriminatory in nature, or if they pose a long-term environmental hazard when used,
   
4. There is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, or
   
5. There is reason to suspect that the armaments may be used in such a way that contributes to socioeconomic deterioration in the recipient nation;

7. The sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply shall be prohibited.

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member nations and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

And to this end resolves;

1. The term armament shall be defined as military equipment, such as firearms, ammunition, and/or any other device that may possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

2. The term transfer shall be defined as the the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, and/or non-state entities associated with a member-state to any other such entity, including non-member nations;

3. The transfer of armaments in all circumstances shall be coordinated by a government authority which shall, at minimum, be responsible for enforcing the provisions of this resolution;

4. The sale or transfer of armaments shall be prohibited if:

1. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in such a way that initiates or protracts civil or domestic conflict,
   
2. There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate or protract a war of aggression or conquest,
   
3. There is reason to suspect they will be used in such a way that violates the domestic laws of the recipient nation,
   
4. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
   
5. The armaments are non-discriminatory in nature, or if they pose a long-term environmental hazard when used;

5. Instances where there is objectively verifiable evidence to suggest that the transfer of armaments will help maintain or increase the well-being of the inhabitants of the recipient nation shall be specifically exempted from clauses 4a and 4c;

6. The sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply shall be prohibited.

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the threat presented by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Believing that the unregulated trade of armaments poses an extreme hazard to national populations,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member states and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

And to this end resolves;

1. The term armament shall be defined as military equipment, such as firearms, ammunition, and/or any other device that may possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

2. The term transfer shall be defined as the the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivisions thereof, and/or non-state entities associated with a member-state to any other such entity, including non-member nations;

3. The transfer of armaments in all circumstances shall be coordinated by a government authority, which shall at minimum, be responsible for enforcing the provisions of this resolution;

4. The sale or transfer of armaments shall be prohibited if:

1. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in such a way that initiates or protracts civil or domestic conflict,
   
2. There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate or protract a war of aggression or conquest,
   
3. There is reason to suspect they will be used in such a way that violates the domestic laws of the recipient nation,
   
4. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
   
5. The armaments are non-discriminatory in nature, or if they pose a long-term environmental hazard when used;

5. The sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply shall be prohibited.

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

Recognizing the threat presented by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

Condemning instances where weapons or armaments are knowingly sold to recipients that may intend to use them for violent means,

Hoping to limit the involvement of member states and their citizens in violence made possible by the aforementioned unregulated trade of weapons and armaments,

And to this end resolves;

1. The term armament shall be defined as military equipment, such as firearms, ammunition, and/or any other device that may possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

2. The sale or transfer of armaments shall be prohibited if:

1. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in such a way that initiates or protracts civil or domestic conflict,
   
2. There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate or protract a war of aggression or conquest,
   
3. There is reason to suspect they will be used in such a way that violates the domestic laws of the recipient nation,
   
4. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
   
5. The armaments are non-discriminatory in nature, or if they pose a long-term environmental hazard when used;

3. The sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply shall be prohibited.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I like this. I was considering a very scaled down version, strictly limited to the torture trade, after Barbossa's effort crashed and burned; this is obviously more ambitious. It has the benefit of a much stronger definition than Barbossa's.

"I don't understand the 'non-discriminatory' part. The WA has already prohibited the trade in the most obvious examples of these - such as bioweapons and non-command detonated landmines - and this could be taken to mean anything up to barbed wire and punji sticks.

"I also question how any of this is actually going to work. Without arms export licensing, and without regulating arms brokers, these regulations are really just scraps of paper, and the fact that there is a legislative prohibition is not likely to do a great deal to address the total scale of the arms trade.

"That said, Barbossa's effort really did crash and burn - so it may be that this is all that will be politically possible, in which case I suppose it is better than nothing."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Sciongrad]

"I don't understand the 'non-discriminatory' part. The WA has already prohibited the trade in the most obvious examples of these - such as bioweapons and non-command detonated landmines - and this could be taken to mean anything up to barbed wire and punji sticks.

My initial intention was to seal any oversights, however I do see your point. I'll reconsider adjusting this clause to be less inclusive, but if there's more resistance to it, I suppose I'll have to remove it.

"I also question how any of this is actually going to work. Without arms export licensing, and without regulating arms brokers, these regulations are really just scraps of paper, and the fact that there is a legislative prohibition is not likely to do a great deal to address the total scale of the arms trade.

I was considering a regulatory agency with the ability to enforce sanctions on violators, but I was initially skeptical of its necessity. However, I would gladly incorporate something along those lines if you find it necessary. EDIT: Upon further reflection, I find myself in total agreement. I'll add some form of regulatory bureaucracy shortly.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I think that I can hesitantly support this resolution.

A suggestion: Add something about armament use against civilians or other innocents. Whether by ones own nation or the intent to use them against the civilians of other nations. This may be already partially covered by other WA resolutions like Convention on Genocide, but I think it's better, for a piece this important, to state it explicitly such that the resolution is not dependent on other resolutions as much as possible, and such that it's explicitly stated and visible.

[Point Breeze]

I can support this resolution. I do, also, agree with the need for a regulatory agency. Usually I find them unnecessary but this type of crime is devious enough to warrant its own class of punishments.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Hold on, I think there's been a misunderstanding.

"I wasn't advocating for a WA 'regulatory agency'. I could see how one could be useful, but it's nothing I'm particularly clamouring for. What I'm talking about is national level oversight: that is, requiring nations to license arms exports. Arms exports could only be approved with end-user certification guaranteeing that the would be subject to the regulations of this act. Whether or not some central WA committee has a role in this is of less consequence to me. Equally, only arms brokers who licensed with the nation in question would be permitted to broker arms deals.

"Without this kind of process, there's very little way of assessing whether the arms trades in question are going to be in accord with the terms of this act."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Alqania]

"Yes, for all that is sacred and valued, if a regulatory bureaucracy is necessary, make it national", Lord Raekevik pleaded.

"In any case, the Queendom would greatly prefer the removal of a, b and c. We have yet to decide whether we are able to support an act with those prohibitions included."

[Eireann Fae]

"We will need more time to give this draft our proper attention^†, but you certainly have our tentative support in this endeavour. That support will remain strong if you do not heed Lord Raekevik's advice, stripping the draft of its strongest subclauses, which also garner our strongest support. We love the restriction of sales of armaments to nations involved in any sort of civil or aggressive conflict, and would have serious doubts about a resolution of this sort without such text in place."

^† Alas, I must prepare for work soon.

[Point Breeze]

Sure, national agencies can do the job just as well.

[Chester Pearson]

You can count on The Federations full support for this proposal, so long as clauses A, B, and C remain, and the World Assembly is given complete oversight.... Without these, this resolution will be nothing more than another feel good resolution, that fails to address the needs it is legislating upon.

Warmest regards,

[Bears Armed]

2. The sale or transfer of armaments shall be prohibited if:

a.There is reason to suspect that they will be used in such a way that initiates or protracts civil or domestic conflict,

"protracts"?

[Eireann Fae]

"Prolongs, my fine urrsish friend. A more archaic word, perhaps, but it is apt."

[Sciongrad]

"Hold on, I think there's been a misunderstanding.

"I wasn't advocating for a WA 'regulatory agency'. I could see how one could be useful, but it's nothing I'm particularly clamouring for. What I'm talking about is national level oversight: that is, requiring nations to license arms exports. Arms exports could only be approved with end-user certification guaranteeing that the would be subject to the regulations of this act. Whether or not some central WA committee has a role in this is of less consequence to me. Equally, only arms brokers who licensed with the nation in question would be permitted to broker arms deals.

"Without this kind of process, there's very little way of assessing whether the arms trades in question are going to be in accord with the terms of this act."

In which case, I suppose we weren't exactly in agreement initially, but I'm nonetheless open to your suggestion. I'll incorporate it into the next draft, and I would very much appreciate your feedback. I still see the use of a World Assembly bureaucracy, however it seems as if that's received mixed responses.

"Yes, for all that is sacred and valued, if a regulatory bureaucracy is necessary, make it national", Lord Raekevik pleaded.

"In any case, the Queendom would greatly prefer the removal of a, b and c. We have yet to decide whether we are able to support an act with those prohibitions included."

The Scionite delegation has nothing but respect for you and your suggestions, your Excellency, but I fail to see how removing subclauses a, b, and c would accomplish anything aside from gutting the resolution of its entire purpose. I assume your objection is one related to flexibility in foreign policy or something along those lines, but this is not an issue that my delegation sees itself as willing to play around with.

[Sciongrad]

The draft has been updated - I've added something along the lines of what was suggested by his Excellency Ambassador Fungschlammer and a definition of the term "transfer," so as to make that clause less ambiguous.

[Bears Armed]

"Prolongs, my fine urrsish friend. A more archaic word, perhaps, but it is apt."

"Ah, thank you, I understand now; I was previously more familiar with that term in the context of the 'protractor', which as you presumably know already is a tool for measuring angles.
"So, if a guerilla movement led by would-be tyrants is trying to overthrow a liberal democracy, whose existing government is so peaceable that it has few weapons and is therefore likely to fall quite quickly, this proposal would forbid supplying that legitimate government with enough weapons to give it a fighting chance of defeating those rebels? I don't hrreally like that possibility."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Rio Cana]

From: The Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Empire of Rio Cana.
RE: Limitations on Armaments Exports.

We find this proposal to be in violation of the internal affairs of other nations.

Also, our Empire currently manufactures AK-47 for domestic use and for export. Not having a very diversified economy, having many unemployed and needing foreign currency, makes us unable to support this proposal.

The Imperial Ministry of foreign Affairs of the Empire of Rio Cana.

[Sciongrad]

"Prolongs, my fine urrsish friend. A more archaic word, perhaps, but it is apt."

"Ah, thank you, I understand now; I was previously more familiar with that term in the context of the 'protractor', which as you presumably know already is a tool for measuring angles.
"So, if a guerrilla movement led by would-be tyrants is trying to overthrow a liberal democracy, whose existing government is so peaceable that it has few weapons and is therefore likely to fall quite quickly, this proposal would forbid supplying that legitimate government with enough weapons to give it a fighting chance of defeating those rebels? I don't hrreally like that possibility."

This is a fair point. How does this sounds:

The aforementioned clause may be waived if there is verifiable evidence to suggest that the transfer of armaments will contribute to restoring or maintaining political stability, and/or if such armaments will be used in such a manner that will maintain or improve the standard of living for the inhabitants of the recipient nation,

[Elke and Elba]

"Ah, thank you, I understand now; I was previously more familiar with that term in the context of the 'protractor', which as you presumably know already is a tool for measuring angles.
"So, if a guerrilla movement led by would-be tyrants is trying to overthrow a liberal democracy, whose existing government is so peaceable that it has few weapons and is therefore likely to fall quite quickly, this proposal would forbid supplying that legitimate government with enough weapons to give it a fighting chance of defeating those rebels? I don't hrreally like that possibility."

This is a fair point. How does this sounds:

The aforementioned clause may be waived if there is verifiable evidence to suggest that the transfer of armaments will contribute to restoring or maintaining political stability, and/or if such armaments will be used in such a manner that will maintain or improve the standard of living for the inhabitants of the recipient nation,

Not Eireann Fae, but well uhm, it does protract war, and if so, it doesn't really maintain or restore political stability, no?

[Sciongrad]

This is a fair point. How does this sounds:

Not Eireann Fae, but well uhm, it does protract war, and if so, it doesn't really maintain or restore political stability, no?

Protracting war doesn't inherently hurt political stability. If the legitimate government is on the verge of collapse, then prolong the conflict in favor of the government would, in fact, help to resort political stability.

Yours,

[Alqania]

"Ah, thank you, I understand now; I was previously more familiar with that term in the context of the 'protractor', which as you presumably know already is a tool for measuring angles.
"So, if a guerrilla movement led by would-be tyrants is trying to overthrow a liberal democracy, whose existing government is so peaceable that it has few weapons and is therefore likely to fall quite quickly, this proposal would forbid supplying that legitimate government with enough weapons to give it a fighting chance of defeating those rebels? I don't hrreally like that possibility."

This is a fair point. How does this sounds:

The aforementioned clause may be waived if there is verifiable evidence to suggest that the transfer of armaments will contribute to restoring or maintaining political stability, and/or if such armaments will be used in such a manner that will maintain or improve the standard of living for the inhabitants of the recipient nation,

"It sounds like something that would make my previous suggestion moot", opined Lord Raekevik. "The Queendom could probably utilise that exception for all cases otherwise prohibited where we would like to export arms."

Not Eireann Fae, but well uhm, it does protract war, and if so, it doesn't really maintain or restore political stability, no?

"The long-term restoration of political stability may necessitate short-term protraction of war", argued Lord Raekevik.

[Sciongrad]

"It sounds like something that would make my previous suggestion moot", opined Lord Raekevik. "The Queendom could probably utilise that exception for all cases otherwise prohibited where we would like to export arms."

I'm very glad to hear that, your Excellency. If you have any other concerns or suggestions, I'll gladly hear them.

[Elke and Elba]

Not Eireann Fae, but well uhm, it does protract war, and if so, it doesn't really maintain or restore political stability, no?

Protracting war doesn't inherently hurt political stability. If the legitimate government is on the verge of collapse, then prolong the conflict in favor of the government would, in fact, help to resort political stability. Although I, myself, am ambivalent towards the proposed clause I just wrote...

Yours,

Not Eireann Fae, but well uhm, it does protract war, and if so, it doesn't really maintain or restore political stability, no?

"The long-term restoration of political stability may necessitate short-term protraction of war", argued Lord Raekevik.

Two things to clarify given that I'm utterly confused from the responses:

1) What is "Political Stability" in your own opinions?

2) Using Eireann Fae's context as abovementioned in her post - given that civil war means that the country is already politically unstable, would it not be easier to let the tyrants take over and restore political stability...?

(OOC: Not that I support tyrants anyway, I was just questioning the wording of the clause which probably might not see daylight in the resolution since resolution proposer is quite... sceptical about it too.)

[Sciongrad]

Two things to clarify given that I'm utterly confused from the responses:

1) What is "Political Stability" in your own opinions?

Knowing that the government will continue to function properly without the risk of being overthrown or toppled by political opponents.

Using Eireann Fae's context as abovementioned in her post - given that civil war means that the country is already politically unstable, would it not be easier to let the tyrants take over and restore political stability...?

If the nation is already in a state of political instability, the clause still includes restoring political stability. Furthermore, ceding power to the tyrant rebels is probably not the best way to accomplish political stability when the rightful government still exists.

[Bears Armed]

Also, as part of the anti-"protraction" aspect of this proposal, how about a clause limiting any member nation (and all firms operating from within its territories) to supplying arms to no more than one side of a conflict?

[Sciongrad]

Also, as part of the anti-"protraction" aspect of this proposal, how about a clause limiting any member nation (and all firms operating from within its territories) to supplying arms to no more than one side of a conflict?

This is something I can support. I'll be sure to integrate this into the proposal shortly. Also, I would appreciate your feedback regarding the clause proposed to satisfy your concerns.