[PASSED] Responsible Arms Trading

[Separatist Peoples]

I've made some more significant changes to the draft.

Firstly, and most importantly, I've limited "armaments" exclusively to weapons and ammunition, as well as the parts necessary in constructing them. The proposal's ambition is certainly what led to its failure last time. Here is the new clause:

"1. Defines the term "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;"

I've also modified clause four:

"4. Assures member nations the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law or future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action;"

"That does seem to avoid blocking off the whole category."

[Sciongrad]

I've made some more significant changes to the draft.

Firstly, and most importantly, I've limited "armaments" exclusively to weapons and ammunition, as well as the parts necessary in constructing them. The proposal's ambition is certainly what led to its failure last time. Here is the new clause:

"1. Defines the term "armament" as military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;"

I've also modified clause four:

"4. Assures member nations the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law or future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action;"

"That does seem to avoid blocking off the whole category."

As much as I would like to block off the whole category, I have to be pragmatic if I plan to go this route. Unfortunately, this still blocks the entire "relax" subcategory, so I'll have to develop some exception that would keep the category unblocked while effectively preventing the most invasive legislation that typically finds itself sorted under "Gun Control: relax."

Uses of "and/or" also removed. A bad habit I have, I guess, about which his Excellency of the Dark Star Republic has been too patient with me.

[Sciongrad]

Seeing the Sisyphean task ahead of us if this proposal is to be passed, I would really appreciate any and all comments.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As a user of the exclusive and inclusive 'or', I would advocate you to use the conjunction 'and or', which in my experience, does not require a forwards slash. Otherwise, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may use cherry-pick-interpret your resolution.

OOC ADDENDUM:
Also, I feel that this resolution may disproportionately affect some nations, as interpretations of conquest differ. For example, when the Argentines attempted to conquer the Overseas Territory of the Falkland Islands, one of the reasons that they were able to sink the HMS Sheffield was because they had purchased Exocet missiles on the open market. If there were a provisioning system such as this one, then they would be heavily disadvantaged. While I find it a good thing that the Argentines were unable to sink more of our ships, I leave it as food for thought.

[Sciongrad]

As a user of the exclusive and inclusive 'or', I would advocate you to use the conjunction 'and or', which in my experience, does not require a forwards slash. Otherwise, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may use cherry-pick-interpret your resolution.

The elimination of the "and/or" construction doesn't meaningfully change the effect of any clause it was present in previously. "And or" is a clunky phrase and provides no meaning that isn't satisfied by "or" alone.

OOC ADDENDUM:
Also, I feel that this resolution may disproportionately affect some nations, as interpretations of conquest differ. For example, when the Argentines attempted to conquer the Overseas Territory of the Falkland Islands, one of the reasons that they were able to sink the HMS Sheffield was because they had purchased Exocet missiles on the open market. If there were a provisioning system such as this one, then they would be heavily disadvantaged. While I find it a good thing that the Argentines were unable to sink more of our ships, I leave it as food for thought.

OOC: While I agree there may be ambiguity in what constitutes a war of expropriation, I don't think the very few instances where ambiguity may arise should concern the World Assembly. The WA has some components of realism, and so it can't address every possible ambiguity in a 3500 character resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As a user of the exclusive and inclusive 'or', I would advocate you to use the conjunction 'and or', which in my experience, does not require a forwards slash. Otherwise, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may use cherry-pick-interpret your resolution.

The elimination of the "and/or" construction doesn't meaningfully change the effect of any clause it was present in previously. "And or" is a clunky phrase and provides no meaning that isn't satisfied by "or" alone.

No problem with that. I only bring it up for clarity's sake.

OOC ADDENDUM:
Also, I feel that this resolution may disproportionately affect some nations, as interpretations of conquest differ. For example, when the Argentines attempted to conquer the Overseas Territory of the Falkland Islands, one of the reasons that they were able to sink the HMS Sheffield was because they had purchased Exocet missiles on the open market. If there were a provisioning system such as this one, then they would be heavily disadvantaged. While I find it a good thing that the Argentines were unable to sink more of our ships, I leave it as food for thought.

OOC: While I agree there may be ambiguity in what constitutes a war of expropriation, I don't think the very few instances where ambiguity may arise should concern the World Assembly. The WA has some components of realism, and so it can't address every possible ambiguity in a 3500 character resolution.

OOC: How about practically every single war about national identity since the rise of nationalisms.

[Celsuis]

"The delegation of the Republic of Celsuis would like to present some concerns about this draft resolution.

With respect to the clause "Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments", we are concerned that this does not differentiate between the unregulated international trade of arms and the entirely domestic trade of arms. As a nation which completely believes its domestic policy of unregulated arms trade, in fact, improves national security, we would like to see clarification in this regard.

Concerning the definition of armament being "military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production", we would ask for clarification whether such a definition of armament would include simple muskets, knives, and possibly blunt objects which can possess practical military application under certain circumstances in certain nations.

On the clause "Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations 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", we are concerned about how this would affect one-time manufactures of armaments and individuals who manufacture armaments purely for their personal or local use. Additionally, we would ask for an explanation of in what way such registration could prevent armaments from entering the hands of abusive nations or groups.

Regarding the clause "Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, 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", we would ask for explanation of why such a clause is actually necessary and in what way it actually tangibly improves safety or prevents armaments from falling into evil hands."

[Sciongrad]

With respect to the clause "Recognizing the extreme hazard to national populations posed by the unregulated trade of weapons and armaments", we are concerned that this does not differentiate between the unregulated international trade of arms and the entirely domestic trade of arms. As a nation which completely believes its domestic policy of unregulated arms trade, in fact, improves national security, we would like to see clarification in this regard.

"That clause is a non-binding preambulatory clause. It merely expresses the goals and motivations of the resolution, it doesn't present any binding policy.

Concerning the definition of armament being "military equipment, specifically weapons and ammunition, which possess a practical application in military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production", we would ask for clarification whether such a definition of armament would include simple muskets, knives, and possibly blunt objects which can possess practical military application under certain circumstances in certain nations.

"Muskets and certain types of knives are weapons and therefore would be considered armaments. Blunt objects like lamps, chairs, etc. are not armaments. I will not consider any arguments suggesting common items have practical military applications as weapons. Period."

On the clause "Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations 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", we are concerned about how this would affect one-time manufactures of armaments and individuals who manufacture armaments purely for their personal or local use. Additionally, we would ask for an explanation of in what way such registration could prevent armaments from entering the hands of abusive nations or groups.

"Registration in itself is not a burdensome task. The clause is meant purely to ensure that all arms traders are following the provisions of this resolution. Because the international arms trade often is between corporations and nations, and the WA cannot directly impact businesses except through the governments of member nations, this clause is a way of ensuring that arms traders are following the terms of this resolution."

Regarding the clause "Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, 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", we would ask for explanation of why such a clause is actually necessary and in what way it actually tangibly improves safety or prevents armaments from falling into evil hands."

OOC: End User Certification is an actual real world policy used in international arms trading. It provides legal evidence that a weapon was received by its intended recipient.

[Sciongrad]

"Yes, put it right over there, Ricardo - hey, watch where you're going with that! - yes, right under there will do" instructed Natalia Santos, fastening her headscarf with her fingers, which were paradoxically both remarkably plump and appearing to be as fragile as glass, and delicately placing herself in a chair to reduce the strain on her back. Her aids repeatedly suggested she visit a chiropractor - although she relished in being able to complain about anything, and a bad back was a gold mine for initiating such conversation - but she would silence them with the terse, yet proud, reminder that her grandfather had "lived to be 102 and never once visited a doctor!" Her aids merely nodded and walked away, lest she go on to remind them of how her great-great uncle stopped a gun fight with his voice, or how her mother, through sheer prudence and industry, fed her whole family for 7 weeks with only a single orange. "Yes, just shove it in there. Yes, just like that," she said to Ricardo, her faithful lieutenant, who was pushing a cartoonishly large sack of unknown objects marked shoddily over a piece of duct tape with "not the hard earned and divinely endowed weapons of righteous and sovereignty-loving WA member nations." Once the sack was under the Scionte delegation's desk, the aging emissary turned her attention to the assembly as if nothing had happened, and notified them that "this resolution will be submitted shortly after the queue has cleared, barring any last minute questions or concerns." And with that, she returned her attention to Ricardo to devise some other ridiculous task for him.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

From the significantly less terrifying projection of ambassador Anglortas Essul comes a point of note.

"The resolution in its current form holds very little power over nations such as the Combine. It could certainly restrict the distribution of some physical modes of warfare such as scrolls or talismans of arcane potential, but the dissemination of magical talents itself would be unrestricted. It would be within international law to teach the black riders the art of summoning the daemonic. This is likely an oversight on the author's part, having little experience in such things as magical warfare"

[Jarish Inyo]

In all honesty, this proposal really doesn't do anything but require a seller to get a signed note from a purchaser. Not a big deal and can be part of the purchasing paperwork.

[Sciongrad]

From the significantly less terrifying projection of ambassador Anglortas Essul comes a point of note.

"The resolution in its current form holds very little power over nations such as the Combine. It could certainly restrict the distribution of some physical modes of warfare such as scrolls or talismans of arcane potential, but the dissemination of magical talents itself would be unrestricted. It would be within international law to teach the black riders the art of summoning the daemonic. This is likely an oversight on the author's part, having little experience in such things as magical warfare"

OOC: I'm not going to account for this argument. Sorry.

In all honesty, this proposal really doesn't do anything but require a seller to get a signed note from a purchaser. Not a big deal and can be part of the purchasing paperwork.

"Well, for full disclosure, it would also forbid the transfer of weapons to regimes, groups, or individuals when there is probable cause that those regimes, groups, or individuals will use those weapons in any of the ways outlined in clause seven."

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it doesn't. Clause seven doesn't state anything about probable cause. And it is up to the manufacture is they suspect that any regimes, groups, or individuals will use those weapons in any of the ways outlined in clause seven. How do you plan on proving that a manufacture suspect anything that is outlined in clause 7?

[Sciongrad]

Actually, it doesn't. Clause seven doesn't state anything about probable cause. And it is up to the manufacture is they suspect that any regimes, groups, or individuals will use those weapons in any of the ways outlined in clause seven. How do you plan on proving that a manufacture suspect anything that is outlined in clause 7?

"The term used in the resolution is 'reason to suspect,' which imposes an even lower threshold than 'probable cause,' actually. But it seems as if your argument is based on a misunderstanding of how laws work - allow me to explain. Manufacturers, retailers, and venders are required by law to do something. When they fail to do something, they are punished. In this case, they must register with the governments in whose nation(s) they operate. Clause seven lists regulations that must be imposed by the governments of member nations, as per clause five, and therefore member nations must enforce those regulations in good faith. Therefore, if there is reason to suspect that the transfer violates clause seven - and this is not some arbitrary decision made by manufacturers, it is an objective standard that exists independently of what a manufacturer says - then the transfer of those weapons was illegal and the party responsible for the transfer must be prosecuted. Establishing that weapons were transferred to terrorists, genocidal maniacs, or tinpot dictators is not difficult, so if your concern is that manufacturers and retailers could do so without being punished suggests more about the competency of your own government than the efficacy of this resolution."

[Jarish Inyo]

My argument is not based on a misunderstanding of how law works. It'as based what is in the text.

If there is reason to suspect that the transfer violates clause seven is some arbitrary decision made by manufacturers as nothing in the text indicates that it is the decision of what is reason to suspect is left to the nation in which the manufacture is registered to operate in. The current draft does not make it clear that it is an objective standard that exists independently of what a manufacturer says.

Once the shipment reaches the buyer, it's out of the hands of the manufacture or dealer. If the weapons end up in the hands of a terrorist, it is not the manufacture or dealer who should be prosecuted if the deal was completed legally. As for tinpot dictators, if they are legitimate heads of states, then they have the right to purchase arms for their military.

This proposal has three requirements. Manufactures and dealers be registered in the WA nations they operate in. Manufactures and dealers use end-user certificates. Lastly, prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments if there is reason to suspect if they'll be used in something illegal. But doesn't clarify who decides what is reason to suspect.

[Sciongrad]

My argument is not based on a misunderstanding of how law works.

"You're right, I apologize. It appears that you simply don't know how to read, instead."

If there is reason to suspect that the transfer violates clause seven is some arbitrary decision made by manufacturers as nothing in the text indicates that it is the decision of what is reason to suspect is left to the nation in which the manufacture is registered to operate in. The current draft does not make it clear that it is an objective standard that exists independently of what a manufacturer says.

"A reason to suspect is an objective legal standard, it doesn't have to be defined as so explicitly. If an individual sells weapons to terrorists, then his word is not legitimate proof that he didn't have a reason to suspect. It must be objectively proven that a reason to suspect that his weapons would be used in contravention of one of clause seven's regulations existed. That individual stating "I didn't know" is not what reason to suspect means, unless denying guilt without evidence is met with plenary acceptance of innocence in Jarish Inyo."

Once the shipment reaches the buyer, it's out of the hands of the manufacture or dealer. If the weapons end up in the hands of a terrorist, it is not the manufacture or dealer who should be prosecuted if the deal was completed legally. As for tinpot dictators, if they are legitimate heads of states, then they have the right to purchase arms for their military.

"Such transfers are not completely legal. As a matter of fact, knowingly selling weapons to terrorists, slavers, etc. is actually illegal, according to this resolution. And tinpot dictators only have the right to purchase arms if they're in compliance with the regulations enumerated in clause seven."

This proposal has three requirements. Manufactures and dealers be registered in the WA nations they operate in. Manufactures and dealers use end-user certificates. Lastly, prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments if there is reason to suspect if they'll be used in something illegal. But doesn't clarify who decides what is reason to suspect.

"It doesn't have to, that's implicit. If you can't grasp that, I don't think me taking the time to explain it to you will be fruitful. If member nations are required to prevent manufacturers, vendors, and retailers from selling weapons in contravention of clause seven's regulations, then it is their responsibility to determine if the law was broken, and thus they are responsible for deciding if there was reason to suspect. Unless manufacturers and venders are responsible for enforcing the law in Jarish Inyo (in which case then they're required to comply with clause seven in good faith anyway), they can't interpret what violates the laws."

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Before this is submitted, I'd like at least some comment on the perceived scope of the definition and the blocker in clause four: "4. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law, future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;"

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: In fact, it is a blocker which in my opinion, does nothing, because it has an exception so large... it encompasses 100% of the block. As a NatSov who does not like guns (I really think what we have in the UK is pretty good on that subject), I object out of principle.

Philosophically, this topic is entirely in the purview of WA policy. In the layman's use of the word jurisdiction, it falls in it entirely, as a purely international issue. However, I would ask you to reconsider the logistical requirements of nations at war as well as the implications this has on free trade.

The blocking section (§4), has multiple exceptions which except the past, present, and future — especially with reference to 'prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action' and is practically not a blocker at all. Nor does it block future resolutions relaxing gun control laws, something which it also fails at doing.

Hence, I must say that your blocker blocks nothing of importance and your clause here: 'There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation' practically bans arms sales during wartime.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: In fact, it is a blocker which in my opinion, does nothing, because it has an exception so large... it encompasses 100% of the block. As a NatSov who does not like guns (I really think what we have in the UK is pretty good on that subject), I object out of principle.

Philosophically, this topic is entirely in the purview of WA policy. In the layman's use of the word jurisdiction, it falls in it entirely, as a purely international issue. However, I would ask you to reconsider the logistical requirements of nations at war as well as the implications this has on free trade.

The blocking section (§4), has multiple exceptions which except the past, present, and future — especially with reference to 'prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action' and is practically not a blocker at all. Nor does it block future resolutions relaxing gun control laws, something which it also fails at doing.

Hence, I must say that your blocker blocks nothing of importance and your clause here: 'There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation' practically bans arms sales during wartime.

OOC: Purely in reference to the blocking section, I think your concerns about allowing only international relaxing of gun control laws to be a little unnecessary: The demographics of the voters seem to lean more American Left than American Right, so a law relaxing gun control laws in the WA is much less likely than one going the other direction. I believe the refusal to bar relaxing of gun laws was intentional and weighed against that assumption.

Also, the term regarding imminent lawless use is pretty strict, as the dictionary definition of imminent has some pretty strict interpretations. While an individual nation could argue that they consider "imminent" to measure in weeks or months, such an interpretation is much less likely to be abused on a WA-wide front. /$.02

[The Dark Star Republic]

All OOC.

OOC: Purely in reference to the blocking section, I think your concerns about allowing only international relaxing of gun control laws to be a little unnecessary: The demographics of the voters seem to lean more American Left than American Right, so a law relaxing gun control laws in the WA is much less likely than one going the other direction. I believe the refusal to bar relaxing of gun laws was intentional and weighed against that assumption.

Bit off topic, but I completely disagree. People on NS are socially liberal in the extreme majority (preferring to legalise incest and third term abortion than admit any restrictions at all, for example), and if you look at the political compass results from NSG and big regions, everyone seems to end up in the bottom half, whether economically left or right.

Add in that the majority of NSers are American and I personally think a relaxing of gun laws is much more likely to pass - but at the same time that it's even more likely that neither would pass.

Back on the topic of the proposal, the blocking clause seems to allow so many exemptions that it can't reasonably be seen as an illegal blocker - though whether it's a useful one with so many exemptions, I'm less certain.

[Sciongrad]

The blocking section (§4), has multiple exceptions which except the past, present, and future — especially with reference to 'prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action' and is practically not a blocker at all. Nor does it block future resolutions relaxing gun control laws, something which it also fails at doing.

OOC: I cannot legally block all future legislation on internal gun control. I'm limited to blocking most circumstances, along the lines of GAR#68, but more explicitly to avoid the type of lawyering that's made NEF a worthless piece of paper. But it would prevent any international regulation on private ownership of weapons except for two rather specific instances, and I'm comfortable with that. Frankly, while I would like the gun control category removed or blocked entirely, the true purpose of this clause is to garner as much support from NatSovs as possible, because resolutions on international arms trading have historically been very difficult to pass. Anything that can be included to gain support without undermining the purpose of the resolution is fine by me. If less inclusive language is suggested, I'll gladly incorporate it, however.

Hence, I must say that your blocker blocks nothing of importance and your clause here: 'There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation' practically bans arms sales during wartime.

OOC: Not all wars are wars of conquest or expropriation. Your conclusion is based on a misreading. Weapons can be traded to nations that have not initiated wars of expropriation, so long as they're compliant with the other regulations stipulated in clause seven. As an institution that works to promote peace, I'm confounded that its members are even suggesting that preventing the trade of weapons and ammunition to aggressors in wars of conquest is an overreach.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Not all wars are wars of conquest or expropriation. Your conclusion is based on a misreading. Weapons can be traded to nations that have not initiated wars of expropriation, so long as they're compliant with the other regulations stipulated in clause seven. As an institution that works to promote peace, I'm confounded that its members are even suggesting that preventing the trade of weapons and ammunition to aggressors in wars of conquest is an overreach.

OOC: Which, in the case of such wars as the First World War, was neither side — since both sides divided the planet based on their agreements before the war ended. If this proposal were the case, then nobody would have been able to trade with either side (nor any ally trade with fellow allies, as they all were seeking the expansion of territories).

OOC: A war of expropriation would mean any way which takes away property from its owner — which leads to practically every war which has ever happened with a conclusion involving territorial changes, war reparations, repossession of colonies, freeing of people, liberation of countries, and or a demand for the repayment of debt to mean that we cannot trade arms to these places. These restrictions would make the policy of having trading partners in the case of a war or trading with your own allies during a war practically impossible. There are not many wars which do not fall into your clause here.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Not all wars are wars of conquest or expropriation. Your conclusion is based on a misreading. Weapons can be traded to nations that have not initiated wars of expropriation, so long as they're compliant with the other regulations stipulated in clause seven. As an institution that works to promote peace, I'm confounded that its members are even suggesting that preventing the trade of weapons and ammunition to aggressors in wars of conquest is an overreach.

OOC: Which, in the case of such wars as the First World War, was neither side — since both sides divided the planet based on their agreements before the war ended. If this proposal were the case, then nobody would have been able to trade with either side (nor any ally trade with fellow allies, as they all were seeking the expansion of territories).

OOC: A war of expropriation would mean any way which takes away property from its owner — which leads to practically every war which has ever happened with a conclusion involving territorial changes, war reparations, repossession of colonies, freeing of people, liberation of countries, and or a demand for the repayment of debt to mean that we cannot trade arms to these places. These restrictions would make the policy of having trading partners in the case of a war or trading with your own allies during a war practically impossible. There are not many wars which do not fall into your clause here.

OOC: A war of conquest, expropriation, aggression, etc. is one that either lacks a justification of self-defense or is waged for the purpose of expropriating land and subjugating people. As to whether or not these intentions were held by the active parties in World War I is debatable, but scholarship has come to the general consensus that the cause of the war was a shared responsibility. Although it's interesting that for your example, you choise the most notorious case of a war for which all involved parties were responsible, because a more critical analysis of history would demonstrably reveal that many, many parties in many wars were not partaking in wars of aggression. And even if it was true that most wars are wars of aggression - it is not - that doesn't justify the existence of wars of aggression. For a self-proclaimed national sovereignist, you're defense of wars that inherently erode sovereignty is curious.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: A war of conquest, expropriation, aggression, etc. is one that either lacks a justification of self-defense or is waged for the purpose of expropriating land and subjugating people. As to whether or not these intentions were held by the active parties in World War I is debatable, but scholarship has come to the general consensus that the cause of the war was a shared responsibility. Although it's interesting that for your example, you choise the most notorious case of a war for which all involved parties were responsible, because a more critical analysis of history would demonstrably reveal that many, many parties in many wars were not partaking in wars of aggression. And even if it was true that most wars are wars of aggression - it is not - that doesn't justify the existence of wars of aggression. For a self-proclaimed national sovereignist, you're defense of wars that inherently erode sovereignty is curious.

If you want that definition, then define it as that, instead of relying on magical clauses and only providing 'expropriation' and 'conquest', the former of which is defined as 'to take away (property) from its owner' and also, include a point on not turning a defensive war into a war which goes to goals beyond status quo ante bellum. However, addressing the point:

Facts have also come to the general consensus that the war goals of the great powers were diverse and territorial in nature. Germany wanted expanded territories and colonies, Britain ended up with Palestine and others, France got Alsace-Lorraine back, Italy wanted some lands in Austria, Austria wanted territorial concessions in the Balkans. The war goals all involved the taking of properties from its owners.

There is quite a difference between legislating peace and creating peace. It is in the same way that liberalism (translation for Americans, libertarianism, though that translation is imperfect) will defend your freedom of speech, even if you are speaking hate — because as apocryphal Voltaire said, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. I may disapprove of trading weapons to kill people, but I will defend your right to trade it.

[Sciongrad]

Then define it as that, instead of simply 'expropriation' and 'conquest', which is defined as 'to take away (property) from its owner'. However, addressing the point:

OOC: This is fair. It's not unreasonable to interpret those terms in a way that is more broad than I had intended, so I'll change them shortly.

There is quite a difference between legislating peace and creating peace. It is in the same way that liberalism (translation for Americans, libertarianism, though that translation is imperfect) will defend your freedom of speech, even if you are speaking hate — because as apocryphal Voltaire said, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. I may disapprove of trading weapons to kill people, but I will defend your right to trade it.

OOC: I'm assuming this is OOC, because you referenced Voltaire, so I'll respond OOC as well. My IC ambassador and Sciongrad are both ideologically opposed to your "free trade, even if it supports genocide" idea, and I don't want to get into an extended debate out of character over the issue, unless you want to bring it back IC.