Yes I agree weapon trade should be watched that's what I was trying to say but we stop or regulate weapon trade but pay no attention at all to the worlds must powerful weapon I ask again how does that make sense I may not have gone about the repeal correctly and I didnt i admitt it in fact I got denied twice for bad repeal and had to stop writing them so yes I did fail but that is not what bothers me what does bother me is we ignore one thing and turn around and do the exact opposite of what we should said no to it's called hypocrite
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 6:50 pm
by Kaboomlandia
Schalovaihoff wrote:Yes I agree weapon trade should be watched that's what I was trying to say but we stop or regulate weapon trade but pay no attention at all to the worlds must powerful weapon I ask again how does that make sense I may not have gone about the repeal correctly and I didnt i admitt it in fact I got denied twice for bad repeal and had to stop writing them so yes I did fail but that is not what bothers me what does bother me is we ignore one thing and turn around and do the exact opposite of what we should said no to it's called hypocrite
OOC: I'm not even going to try and decipher what you just said until you add proper punctuation.
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 6:53 pm
by Schalovaihoff
Look sorry about puncuation but we're not in grammar school and I have a reason why I don't use a lot it's because I have dexlexia but I will try harder to write better. I'm sorry
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 7:05 pm
by Nocturnalis
It is the position of the Government of the Noctish Realm that this resolution is a complete and utter piece of nonsense and tomfoolery. The Realm shall not stand for these pathetic, weak nations attempting to undermine our economy and national pride with their disgusting resolutions. If this resolution passes, we shall immediately ignore it.
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 7:22 pm
by Schalovaihoff
Nocturnalis wrote:It is the position of the Government of the Noctish Realm that this resolution is a complete and utter piece of nonsense and tomfoolery. The Realm shall not stand for these pathetic, weak nations attempting to undermine our economy and national pride with their disgusting resolutions. If this resolution passes, we shall immediately ignore it.
How do u think that I mean what is ur reasoning I see your point it might hurt ur economy but think bigger but I have to sorta agree with u this resolution seems like hypocrisy to me as u can see in past replays
Nocturnalis wrote:It is the position of the Government of the Noctish Realm that this resolution is a complete and utter piece of nonsense and tomfoolery. The Realm shall not stand for these pathetic, weak nations attempting to undermine our economy and national pride with their disgusting resolutions. If this resolution passes, we shall immediately ignore it.
How do u think that I mean what is ur reasoning I see your point it might hurt ur economy but think bigger but I have to sorta agree with u this resolution seems like hypocrisy to me as u can see in past replays
I think even if this does pass, it probably be repealed within the year, because it is unenforceable or some other reason.
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 8:07 pm
by Schalovaihoff
Wel your making your point to make it seem the WA is a organization that can't get things done or fails even when they do at some level I have to agree but not in the way of they fall flat on everything. They do get things done but those things I have found no good yet so i Ma still hopeful but beginning to lose that hope
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 8:10 pm
by Abazhaka
Schalovaihoff wrote:Wel your making your point to make it seem the WA is a organization that can't get things done or fails even when they do at some level I have to agree but not in the way of they fall flat on everything. They do get things done but those things I have found no good yet so i Ma still hopeful but beginning to lose that hope
I was not trying to indicate that the WA is incompetent, but that there seems to be a pattern of ultimately doomed proposals eating up our time and choking up the list of resolutions
Schalovaihoff wrote:Wel your making your point to make it seem the WA is a organization that can't get things done or fails even when they do at some level I have to agree but not in the way of they fall flat on everything. They do get things done but those things I have found no good yet so i Ma still hopeful but beginning to lose that hope
I was not trying to indicate that the WA is incompetent, but that there seems to be a pattern of ultimately doomed proposals eating up our time and choking up the list of resolutions
In that description that you gave me the resolutions are chocking up our time it seems to point out the fact WA is incompetent so I don't understand how else to state what you saying
Schalovaihoff wrote:How do u think that I mean what is ur reasoning I see your point it might hurt ur economy but think bigger but I have to sorta agree with u this resolution seems like hypocrisy to me as u can see in past replays
I think even if this does pass, it probably be repealed within the year, because it is unenforceable or some other reason.
"I don't think that's likely. Claims that this is difficult to enforce are exaggerated wildly.
As an aside, I'm rather concerned by how many nations are claiming that their economy will be devastated without being able to trade weapons to terrorists and warlords."
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 10:58 pm
by Lumeau
We like this. Simple, practical idea - if you're going to export weapons outside your borders, know where they're going and don't sell to militaries conducting wars of aggression or groups committing war crimes. Hard to see how this is really as burdensome as some of my fellow ambassadors say it is.
Another fine resolution from the IDU. We've voted in approval.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 12:14 am
by Sokulunga Nkiwane
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. OUR ARMIES ARE TO FIGHT AND DESTROY THOSE WHO OPPOSE US. IF WE GIVE THEM UP WE MIGHT AS WELL GIVE UP OUR NATIONS. IF YOU HAVE STUDIED WORLD WAR 1 AND 2 YOU WILL NOTICE THAT EVERYONE WANTED DISARMAMENT AND IF THE ALLIES HAD DISARMED GERMANY WOULD HAVE ONE THE WARS.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 2:01 am
by Lumeau
Sokulunga Nkiwane wrote:THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. OUR ARMIES ARE TO FIGHT AND DESTROY THOSE WHO OPPOSE US. IF WE GIVE THEM UP WE MIGHT AS WELL GIVE UP OUR NATIONS. IF YOU HAVE STUDIED WORLD WAR 1 AND 2 YOU WILL NOTICE THAT EVERYONE WANTED DISARMAMENT AND IF THE ALLIES HAD DISARMED GERMANY WOULD HAVE ONE THE WARS.
I guess actually reading the proposal is out of the question...
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 2:28 am
by Oceanion
including the parts necessary in their construction or production
I'd delete this part if I were you. This could easily include materials used for the creation of infrastructure which would be restricted because they could be used in the construction of, say, missiles or artillery. As a result, I will be voting against this resolution.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 10:09 am
by Jonmikebart
This treaty is nothing less than a few tree hugging hippies suggesting we give up our economies and our defence forces. Many of us here on NationStates have been trading military equipment here for many years and have encountered no problems at all, however a select few have decided to make this an issue! whats next banning of knifes or cars?
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 11:25 am
by Sierra Lyricalia
Jonmikebart wrote:This treaty is nothing less than a few tree hugging hippies suggesting we give up our economies and our defence forces. Many of us here on NationStates have been trading military equipment here for many years and have encountered no problems at all, however a select few have decided to make this an issue! whats next banning of knifes or cars?
I regret to inform you that your delegation appears to be in gross and impressively foolish violation of General Assembly Resolution #122. Please correct this before spouting further untruths.
Thank you.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 12:27 pm
by Ardchoille
As promised, the ruling on the challenge to this proposal:
1. It doesn't appear that Responsible Arms Trading has been placed in the right category as it includes elements of Gun Control, International Security, and Global Disarmament. What's more, the thrust of the proposal is not "to slash worldwide military spending." It's to regulate the arms trade, which necessitates higher spending on the part of the government.
See especially Sections 5 and 7, which are gun control regulations: universal registration with the national government, and 7a's and 7b's restrictions, which could apply to purely domestic affairs (Gun Control, not Global Disarmament).
2. Section 4 is clearly a Gun Control provision, not Global Disarmament. Also, the scope of its "exclusive right" could block off too much of the Gun Control category, thus making this proposal an illegal blocker as well.
3. Given its detailed, compulsory clauses, this proposal should be in a higher category strength than "Mild," which is usually reserved for proposals that recommend to member states certain regulations or courses of action. (E.g., we strongly encourage nations to prohibit the trade of arms for X, Y, and Z.)
4. This proposal either should be rewritten to fit a particular category or should be split into two proposals, one that prohibits the sale or transfer of arms for illegitimate purposes *across* national boundaries and another that prohibits the sale or transfer of arms for illegitimate purposes *within* national boundaries (see Section 7).
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;
That definition pretty securely pegs the general scope of the proposal to military equipment. Sections 5 and 7 both refer to "armaments" -- which, as defined, aren't the "personal guns" covered by Gun Control. Section 7 isn't limited to internal transfers, it restricts all sale or transfer of armaments in the specific cases described. The domestic registration in Section 5 is part of the restrictions on international sales and transfer. The proposal as a whole is directed to international arms decisions, not personal possession of guns.
Section 4 is a Gun Control blocker, as its author admits. But, given the exemptions, it's not an illegal blocker (see comments on scope in Strength, below), and given the expressed aims, it's not unreasonable to have some Gun Control coverage -- domestic manufacturers may not distinguish between, for example, parts of guns for military use and parts for personal use. The proposal is not primarily Gun Control, nor even half-and-half with Global Disarmament.
Category: It can be argued that it will increase military (possibly police) spending (IntSec); it can be argued that it will decrease military spending (Disarmament). These are either-way choices that nations will make on policy grounds {OOC: ie, it depends how you roleplay it]. The intent to reduce the numbers of "ïrresponsible" weapons fits well enough into the concept of Global Disarmament to leave the question to the voters.
Strength: Its ultimate effect is on the group of nations that want to sell arms to terrorists, to nations involved in wars of expropriation, etc. It could have significant effects on those nations, but it can be argued that this group is small. Again, there's enough uncertainty to leave it to the voters.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 4:52 pm
by Excidium Planetis
There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation;
8. Further prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments to non-member nations with the intent of then transferring them to nations where the aforementioned circumstances apply.
For these clauses, Excidium Planetis votes AGAINST this resolution, as it would prohibit at least half of our nation's current arms trade, and would prevent us from indirectly aiding nations who seek a pre-emptive strike against nations whose governments seriously need to be removed.
However, since it appears this resolution will pass, we have begun preparations to comply with this resolution.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 6:21 pm
by The Sotoan Union
Well shucks, there goes my Ace Combat esque plan to improve my economy by taking over my neighbors.
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 8:26 pm
by Sciongrad
Ardchoille wrote:As promised, the ruling on the challenge to this proposal:
1. It doesn't appear that Responsible Arms Trading has been placed in the right category as it includes elements of Gun Control, International Security, and Global Disarmament. What's more, the thrust of the proposal is not "to slash worldwide military spending." It's to regulate the arms trade, which necessitates higher spending on the part of the government.
See especially Sections 5 and 7, which are gun control regulations: universal registration with the national government, and 7a's and 7b's restrictions, which could apply to purely domestic affairs (Gun Control, not Global Disarmament).
2. Section 4 is clearly a Gun Control provision, not Global Disarmament. Also, the scope of its "exclusive right" could block off too much of the Gun Control category, thus making this proposal an illegal blocker as well.
3. Given its detailed, compulsory clauses, this proposal should be in a higher category strength than "Mild," which is usually reserved for proposals that recommend to member states certain regulations or courses of action. (E.g., we strongly encourage nations to prohibit the trade of arms for X, Y, and Z.)
4. This proposal either should be rewritten to fit a particular category or should be split into two proposals, one that prohibits the sale or transfer of arms for illegitimate purposes *across* national boundaries and another that prohibits the sale or transfer of arms for illegitimate purposes *within* national boundaries (see Section 7).
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;
That definition pretty securely pegs the general scope of the proposal to military equipment. Sections 5 and 7 both refer to "armaments" -- which, as defined, aren't the "personal guns" covered by Gun Control. Section 7 isn't limited to internal transfers, it restricts all sale or transfer of armaments in the specific cases described. The domestic registration in Section 5 is part of the restrictions on international sales and transfer. The proposal as a whole is directed to international arms decisions, not personal possession of guns.
Section 4 is a Gun Control blocker, as its author admits. But, given the exemptions, it's not an illegal blocker (see comments on scope in Strength, below), and given the expressed aims, it's not unreasonable to have some Gun Control coverage -- domestic manufacturers may not distinguish between, for example, parts of guns for military use and parts for personal use. The proposal is not primarily Gun Control, nor even half-and-half with Global Disarmament.
Category: It can be argued that it will increase military (possibly police) spending (IntSec); it can be argued that it will decrease military spending (Disarmament). These are either-way choices that nations will make on policy grounds {OOC: ie, it depends how you roleplay it]. The intent to reduce the numbers of "ïrresponsible" weapons fits well enough into the concept of Global Disarmament to leave the question to the voters.
Strength: Its ultimate effect is on the group of nations that want to sell arms to terrorists, to nations involved in wars of expropriation, etc. It could have significant effects on those nations, but it can be argued that this group is small. Again, there's enough uncertainty to leave it to the voters.
OOC: Thank you for the prompt clarification. It's appreciated!
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 9:56 pm
by Alacros
While the goal of this is admirable, the resolution itself is fundamentally contradictory and opens the door for overly heavy-handed regulations which this delegation believes would not be the original intent of the author. Specifically, sections 4 and 5 seem contradict. On the one hand, section 4 "Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy", it immediately carves out exceptions to that clause, and section 5 puts the final nail in the coffin with "Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations to register with the relevant governments of the nations in which they operate, and the terms of such a registration shall, at minimum, encompass the provisions of this resolution."
The language trips over itself. This resolution is designed to regulate only international arms trade, but creeps into the territory of domestic policy that should be reserved to the governments of member states as it is not a fundamental rights issue. We do not believe that was the intent of this resolution, but certainly that is what is likely to happen with the language as it is.
Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 8:42 am
by Abazhaka
I think that this is going to be a close one.
Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 8:47 am
by Defwa
Abazhaka wrote:I think that this is going to be a close one.
The vote is 2 to 1 with 90% of voters reporting. Not close.
Abazhaka wrote:I think that this is going to be a close one.
The vote is 2 to 1 with 90% of voters reporting. Not close.
actually not, about 12000 of nearly 22000 voters accounted for, so it's really 55% of all voters, so there is still a pretty good chance this will be a close one. plus, voters can change their mind.
Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 9:45 am
by Abazhaka
you should check your math before you make errors like 12000 of 22000 is equivalent to 90%.
Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 6:50 pm