[PASSED] Responsible Arms Trading

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Even so, it's kind of silly the lengths that has now been taken to. Resolutions about not using nuclear weapons are now filed in IS? Please.

Yeah, this has been bugging me too. As with the nuke one, I'm not voting for any GD proposals wearing IS lipstick anymore.

Actually, "International Security" ought to be the proper category here. The proposal places restrictions on the international arms trade, which is an IS issue. Global Disarmament restricts the ways nations may build and maintain weapons stockpiles for their own use. This proposal doesn't address that.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah, this has been bugging me too. As with the nuke one, I'm not voting for any GD proposals wearing IS lipstick anymore.

Actually, "International Security" ought to be the proper category here. The proposal places restrictions on the international arms trade, which is an IS issue. Global Disarmament restricts the ways nations may build and maintain weapons stockpiles for their own use. This proposal doesn't address that.

The Acquisitions and Procurement budget would certainly come under "maintenance of weapons stockpiles for their own use".

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Actually, "International Security" ought to be the proper category here. The proposal places restrictions on the international arms trade, which is an IS issue. Global Disarmament restricts the ways nations may build and maintain weapons stockpiles for their own use. This proposal doesn't address that.

The Acquisitions and Procurement budget would certainly come under "maintenance of weapons stockpiles for their own use".

Where is that mentioned in this proposal?

[Imperializt Russia]

The Acquisitions and Procurement budget would certainly come under "maintenance of weapons stockpiles for their own use".

Where is that mentioned in this proposal?

From not being allowed to purchase from certain sources in certain circumstances, the proposal would restrict the way in which a nation may build and maintain weapons stockpiles for its own use.

The proposal does address that.

[Sciongrad]

"I'm personally content with the current definition, but I know it might not fare well among the voters. Does anyone have any suggestion for a less inclusive definition?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"This should really focus on international transfers. As I read it, this affects all gun brokers, regardless of their market. Requiring the proprietors of Old Jim's Gun and Bait Shop to be aware of and make judgement calls to the nature of international law compliance is pretty ridiculous.

"Also, End User Certificates are, generally, used for international and/or bulk transfers, generally not between individuals. Trying to regulate strawman purchases on a local scale is awful micromanage-y. I'm afraid I cannot support any bill that tries to get it's hands on domestic firearms markets, no matter how unintentional it may be."

[Sciongrad]

"Also, End User Certificates are, generally, used for international and/or bulk transfers, generally not between individuals. Trying to regulate strawman purchases on a local scale is awful micromanage-y. I'm afraid I cannot support any bill that tries to get it's hands on domestic firearms markets, no matter how unintentional it may be."

"This isn't the first time this argument has been made. I personally believe that any transfer of armaments where there is evidence that they'll be abused should be restricted, but given the general attitude towards this proposal, I suppose I'll have to make concessions."

"This should really focus on international transfers. As I read it, this affects all gun brokers, regardless of their market. Requiring the proprietors of Old Jim's Gun and Bait Shop to be aware of and make judgement calls to the nature of international law compliance is pretty ridiculous.

"I see no reason why gun shops with local markets should be permitted to sell weapons to terrorists and dictators. Selling armaments requires responsibility, and if firearm vendors can't make the effort to find out whether or not they're contributing to genocide, then maybe they've picked the wrong industry to work in."

[Bears Armed]

OOC
'International Security'/'Global Disarmament' for the weapons of military & police forces.
'Gun Control' for the weapons of individuals.

I'm not sure that you legally can tackle both sales to military/police and sales to individuals within a singl;e proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This isn't the first time this argument has been made. I personally believe that any transfer of armaments where there is evidence that they'll be abused should be restricted, but given the general attitude towards this proposal, I suppose I'll have to make concessions."

"Indeed, ambassador. It isn't indicative of your excellent drafting skill, but of the prevailing political atmosphere."

"I see no reason why gun shops with local markets should be permitted to sell weapons to terrorists and dictators. Selling armaments requires responsibility, and if firearm vendors can't make the effort to find out whether or not they're contributing to genocide, then maybe they've picked the wrong industry to work in."

"You speak of vendors as if they are in charge of vast, military-industrial behemoths, capable of supplying and influencing political movements, but I don't believe you've considered fully the impact this will have on a small, local business. Custom shops and small-time vendors often lack the resources to hire international law-savvy employees and consult with lawyers to that effect.

"As it stands, I feel those requirements for responsibility in sales ought to remain international. If a citizen uses an otherwise legally purchased varmint plinker in a domestic attack, it is no concern of the World Assembly, as it is adequately handled by a national government. By focusing on the international, you focus on the unregulated international and bulk sales that are the problem. Such atrocities are very rarely, if ever, supplied by mom and pop hunting outfitters. You'll likely gain more support by excluding the small-time domestic trade entirely."

[Mundiferrum]

"I honestly think the first definition will be it's downfall, as this is still very broad. There are many common components used in weapons construction that are used to produce regular, everyday items used by millions in the multiverse for peaceful purposes. Under the current wording, these could not be shipped since they are components required to produce armaments. I think that if that definition can be refined to something a little narrower, you would get more ambassadors on board with it."

I pretty much echo this statement. Now, I may be reading too much into this, but by the rather broad definition, food packaged as rations, compasses, swiss army knives, sunglasses, and other such relatively minor accessories may be considered "armaments", since those things, regardless of their very civilian or humanitarian common-use, may be considered as devices "possessing a practical application in military conflict". I suggest really defining what you mean by "military use", and, for the section on components, making the definition set a sort of boundary for when an object is really considered immediately practical in creating armaments.

[Point Breeze]

I agree with my fellow ambassadors. The definitions need reworking.

[Sciongrad]

"I honestly think the first definition will be it's downfall, as this is still very broad. There are many common components used in weapons construction that are used to produce regular, everyday items used by millions in the multiverse for peaceful purposes. Under the current wording, these could not be shipped since they are components required to produce armaments. I think that if that definition can be refined to something a little narrower, you would get more ambassadors on board with it."

I pretty much echo this statement. Now, I may be reading too much into this, but by the rather broad definition, food packaged as rations, compasses, swiss army knives, sunglasses, and other such relatively minor accessories may be considered "armaments", since those things, regardless of their very civilian or humanitarian common-use, may be considered as devices "possessing a practical application in military conflict". I suggest really defining what you mean by "military use", and, for the section on components, making the definition set a sort of boundary for when an object is really considered immediately practical in creating armaments.

"I don't understand this line of reasoning. Why does it matter if compasses, swiss army knives, et al. are included if the trade of them is only restricted when there is evidence that they'll be misused. Member nations shouldn't be allowed to sell anything to anyone if there is reason to suspect the goods will be used to perpetrate genocide or human trafficking."

[Jarish Inyo]

If my nation sales military equipment to an other nation, we expect them to be used, Whether it's training, defense or acts of aggression. It's not our place to ask what type operations that equipment will be used for. Nor do we expect our client nations give us a honest answer if we do ask. Once a client nation accepts the delivery, what they do with the equipment is not our concern.

[Sciongrad]

If my nation sales military equipment to an other nation, we expect them to be used, Whether it's training, defense or acts of aggression. It's not our place to ask what type operations that equipment will be used for. Nor do we expect our client nations give us a honest answer if we do ask. Once a client nation accepts the delivery, what they do with the equipment is not our concern.

"This is the type of behavior this resolution hopes to prevent."

[Jarish Inyo]

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. I'm a realist. I don't expect client nations to be honest about their military operations with my nation. It would not be in their national interest to be honest about their intentions for the equipment.

[Sciongrad]

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. I'm a realist. I don't expect client nations to be honest about their military operations with my nation. It would not be in their national interest to be honest about their intentions for the equipment.

"Don't hide behind meaningless words. If by a realist, you mean someone who has no issue knowingly providing weapons to terrorists and ethnic cleansers, then yes, you're a realist. Unfortunately, the World Assembly has repeatedly asserted that it does not condone genocide, terrorism, human trafficking, or other human rights violations, and therefore, it would follow that the World Assembly shouldn't permit its member nations to be involved in assisting in the perpetration of crimes against humanity."

[Jarish Inyo]

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make what I said meaningless. They are the honest truth. A client nation will do with the equipment as they see fit.

Notice I stated client nations. Not terrorist or criminals.

[Chester Pearson]

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make what I said meaningless. They are the honest truth. A client nation will do with the equipment as they see fit.

Notice I stated client nations. Not terrorist or criminals.

Henceforth a resolution to prevent said client states from arming said terrorists or criminals, like Scion has said twice now.... Why is reading so hard lately? Did they stop teaching it in school since I last went?

[Lexicor]

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make what I said meaningless. They are the honest truth. A client nation will do with the equipment as they see fit.

Notice I stated client nations. Not terrorist or criminals.

Henceforth a resolution to prevent said client states from arming said terrorists or criminals, like Scion has said twice now.... Why is reading so hard lately? Did they stop teaching it in school since I last went?

Sadly yes. Reading is something that is "encouraged" nowadays.

OOC: It also doesn't help that the teachers in my province [BC] are all on strike at the moment...

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: It also doesn't help that the teachers in my province [BC] are all on strike at the moment...

OOC: Damn near happened here in Alberta too. It was only stopped after the teachers found out about the extravagant spending by Redford, and held the PC's over a barrel, forcing an agreement on their terms.

/threadjack over

[Roski]

NO.

This is incredibly stupid. First time the WA gets raided then that country now has the only weapons in the entire world. NEGATIVE.

[Jarish Inyo]

This resolution won't stop client nations from supplying terrorists or criminals.

In fact this resolution doesn't stop or restrict the arms trade to anyone. If any nation claims it doesn't have a reason to suspect a client nation of violating any of provision 6, then its business as usual.

[Sciongrad]

This resolution won't stop client nations from supplying terrorists or criminals.

In fact this resolution doesn't stop or restrict the arms trade to anyone. If any nation claims it doesn't have a reason to suspect a client nation of violating any of provision 6, then its business as usual.

"Good faith compliance is expected of all member nations. Flagrantly lying to get out of the provisions of a resolution is not good faith compliance and is a violation of GAR#2."

[Chester Pearson]

NO.

This is incredibly stupid. First time the WA gets raided then that country now has the only weapons in the entire world. NEGATIVE.

What???? What in the hell are you babbling on about my good man? Please for the love of Christ read past the title (which Scion is using humorously), and read the fucking resolution, before spouting incoherent babbling....

"Good faith compliance is expected of all member nations. Flagrantly lying to get out of the provisions of a resolution is not good faith compliance and is a violation of GAR#2."

You do realize you are asking people to do the unspeakable right? You are asking them to actually read a resolution, comprehend it, and understand that other resolutions are in effect that will also affect this one as well.

[Jarish Inyo]

Could you prove they are lying? And it is up to the nation selling the equipment to decide if they have reason to suspect if the client nation is violating the provision in this resolution.