[PASSED] Responsible Arms Trading

[Chester Pearson]

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.

Why does he have to? The gnomes will ensure your compliance on the matter, by rewriting your laws for you....

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, he does. The gnomes can not decide what is 'reason to suspect' for the me. Hence, they will not be able to rewrite my laws to ensure my compliance on the matter. It still comes down to my nations government making the decision if it suspects if a client nation is in violation of the resolution.

[Chester Pearson]

Actually, he does. The gnomes can not decide what is 'reason to suspect' for the me. Hence, they will not be able to rewrite my laws to ensure my compliance on the matter. It still comes down to my nations government making the decision if it suspects if a client nation is in violation of the resolution.

So then pretty much every other resolution on the books is illegal then as well? Someone better send up a flare to the Secretariat so we can fix that snafu....

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, he does. The gnomes can not decide what is 'reason to suspect' for the me. Hence, they will not be able to rewrite my laws to ensure my compliance on the matter. It still comes down to my nations government making the decision if it suspects if a client nation is in violation of the resolution.

So then pretty much every other resolution on the books is illegal then as well? Someone better send up a flare to the Secretariat so we can fix that snafu....

It's not a snafu. Nor are all the resolutions on the books are illegal. What you're missing is that this resolution leaves the decision up to the selling nation if it suspects a client nation violating this resolution.

[Chester Pearson]

What you're missing is that this resolution leaves the decision up to the selling nation if it suspects a client nation violating this resolution.

As does: The Nuclear Security Convention, and The Chemical Weapons Accord. Just a few examples, there are more as well....

[Jarish Inyo]

Is there an actual response in there. This resolution only requires a client nation to fill out an 'end-user certificate' and its still business as usual.

You stated that the gnomes are going to rewrite my nations laws to ensure its compliance. How are they going to do that? Are they going to tell my nations government what it suspects?

[Mundiferrum]

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."

Because you can't honestly expect things like compasses and swiss army knives to be used for genocide or human trafficking!
Also, I made mention of things being transferred for humanitarian reasons (like, say, food packed as rations, or perhaps tools for quickly purifying water) as also fitting in to the definition of "armaments" in your resolution. I'd also like for that to be addressed, since I don't want to stop sending food to impoverished nations just because they're ran by a few terrorists.

[Sciongrad]

Because you can't honestly expect things like compasses and swiss army knives to be used for genocide or human trafficking!

"That's really my point, actually. The trade of those items is only prohibited if there is reason to suspect they'll be used in such a way that violates clause 6. Just because the item is an armament doesn't mean it can't be traded. The intent is what determines whether or not the item can be traded, not the item itself."

Also, I made mention of things being transferred for humanitarian reasons (like, say, food packed as rations, or perhaps tools for quickly purifying water) as also fitting in to the definition of "armaments" in your resolution. I'd also like for that to be addressed, since I don't want to stop sending food to impoverished nations just because they're ran by a few terrorists.

"Again, it seems you're misinterpreting what the resolution actually does. It doesn't prevent you from trading food unless that food will contribute to terrorism, genocide, etc. For example, trading food to a nation committing genocide is only proscribed by this resolution if that food will contribute to the genocide. Again, it's how the product will likely be used that determines whether or not it can be traded."

[Jarish Inyo]

How do you propose we determine intent from client nations that do not appear to be violating provision 6?

[Mundiferrum]

Because you can't honestly expect things like compasses and swiss army knives to be used for genocide or human trafficking!

"That's really my point, actually. The trade of those items is only prohibited if there is reason to suspect they'll be used in such a way that violates clause 6. Just because the item is an armament doesn't mean it can't be traded. The intent is what determines whether or not the item can be traded, not the item itself."

Okay, I think I get yer point here....Although, the bottom point may tie into this....

Also, I made mention of things being transferred for humanitarian reasons (like, say, food packed as rations, or perhaps tools for quickly purifying water) as also fitting in to the definition of "armaments" in your resolution. I'd also like for that to be addressed, since I don't want to stop sending food to impoverished nations just because they're ran by a few terrorists.

"Again, it seems you're misinterpreting what the resolution actually does. It doesn't prevent you from trading food unless that food will contribute to terrorism, genocide, etc. For example, trading food to a nation committing genocide is only proscribed by this resolution if that food will contribute to the genocide. Again, it's how the product will likely be used that determines whether or not it can be traded."

The problem is, in nations run by genocidal maniacs that require poop-tons of food for everyone, it's gonna be impossible to determine whether the food goes to their impoverished civilians or their genocidal maniacs. And I don't think we can stop transferring food to the poor of those nations (that is, if we ever participated in such trades) just because we have reasons to suspect that a few of their peeps could redirect the food to meanie causes, ie contribute to terrorism, genocide, etc....
Ofc, I may be misreading it still, but hey, at least I'm not being uncivil.

(To, er, simplify now:
We can stop trading things like compasses and swiss army knives because they're not exactly necessary (or, as indirectly worded here, not traded for humanitarian causes); however, we can't stop trading food and poop, which by your definition may be considered armaments, just because we have reason to suspect that some of the populace may use them in committing really, really bad things.

Although stopping the trade of said things could help stop the crimes themselves....however, we don't exactly believe that starving a nation for its meanie few is a very good course of action.)

[Sciongrad]

:blush: Okay, I think I get yer point here....

"I'm glad I could assuage your Excellency's concerns."

The problem is, in nations run by genocidal maniacs that require poop-tons of food for everyone, it's gonna be impossible to determine whether the food goes to their impoverished civilians or their genocidal maniacs. And I don't think we can stop transferring food to the poor of those nations (that is, if we ever participated in such trades) just because we have reasons to suspect that a few of their peeps could redirect the food to meanie causes, ie contribute to terrorism, genocide, etc....

"This is a fair concern. Food is not a device, however, and wouldn't be included as an armament. Medical supplies, in some instances, may be considered armaments, but I could easily exclude items of that nature.

Ofc, I may be misreading it still, but hey, at least I'm not being uncivil.

OOC: You have no idea how much I appreciate that. :)

[Mundiferrum]

The problem is, in nations run by genocidal maniacs that require poop-tons of food for everyone, it's gonna be impossible to determine whether the food goes to their impoverished civilians or their genocidal maniacs. And I don't think we can stop transferring food to the poor of those nations (that is, if we ever participated in such trades) just because we have reasons to suspect that a few of their peeps could redirect the food to meanie causes, ie contribute to terrorism, genocide, etc....

"This is a fair concern. Food is not a device, however, and wouldn't be included as an armament. Medical supplies, in some instances, may be considered armaments, but I could easily exclude items of that nature.

How about materials that concern the feeding of food? And yeah, medical devices?
Anyway, since you've said that you're already gonna fix that, consider my current concerns assuaged.

Oh, except perhaps for CDSP's concerns concerning turning this law into one more related to international trades....

[Separatist Peoples]

Oh, except perhaps for CDSP's concerns concerning turning this law into one more related to international trades....

"Indeed. I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that I am not, entirely, opposed to this bill, Ambassador Santos. The C.D.S.P., while generally believing that the actions of an individual are not the fault of the enabler, is willing to cooperate with this effort, seeing as the magnitude of good can vastly outweigh the slight inconveniences under most circumstances. However, since this makes little exception or difference between international arms brokers or manufacturers and small, intranational commercial-scale shops and vendors, I fear you begin to infringe on territory that will lose you supporters faster then if this had an abortion-banning clause in it, and even potentially start delving into the realm of a different category entirely.

"There are, I think, a few ways around this. You could focus on international trade only, which would eliminate those pesky transfers to genocidal maniacs evading arms embargoes. While this would open up a market for members to sell weapons without restriction to their own people, who, in turn, could sell them privately out of the country, I believe the niche will be very small; such an attempt would be highly inefficient and still, technically, involve cross-border trade. Likewise, member states selling weapons to their own people would still have to worry about obeying the laws on genocide and the like, so those weapons would have to be physically transferred across borders by the owners before being legally sold. Horrifically inefficient, especially considering the number of nonmember suppliers out there, so I would find such a loophole would be fairly inoffensive.

"On the other hand, you could remove the focus from small arms and their ammunition altogether, and focus on other military systems. Artillery, anti-aircraft platforms, armored vehicles, chemical weapons, conventional explosives, and the related munitions, etc. Generally, the domestic arms trade goes only so far as small arms, and I don't think too many nations will balk strongly at the concept of requiring an end-user certificate for Joe Sixpack's order of 12 kilos of C4 as much as they might for his varmint rifle. This, however, has the disadvantage of gutting a fair-size chunk of your proposal, as I imagine crates of assault rifles being your intended target for this sort of arms trade, not attack helicopter rocket pods. However, it is an option.

"Again, Ambassador Santos, I'd like to stress that any resistance the C.D.S.P. has to this is purely from the domestic effects this bill will have on our civilian firearms industry, and to separate myself, quite vocally, from those who would see you give up entirely while themselves giving up on common decency in this debate."

[Roski]

Strength: Mild.


We are taking control of every weapon in the world. Oh, but that's mild. You don't even have a clue whats next.

[Chester Pearson]

Strength: Mild.


We are taking control of every weapon in the world. Oh, but that's mild. You don't even have a clue whats next.

Who's taking control of what now?

[Mundiferrum]

Strength: Mild.


We are taking control of every weapon in the world. Oh, but that's mild. You don't even have a clue whats next.

Ambassador, did you read the whole resolution, or just the title?

"On the other hand, you could remove the focus from small arms and their ammunition altogether, and focus on other military systems. Artillery, anti-aircraft platforms, armored vehicles, chemical weapons, conventional explosives, and the related munitions, etc. Generally, the domestic arms trade goes only so far as small arms, and I don't think too many nations will balk strongly at the concept of requiring an end-user certificate for Joe Sixpack's order of 12 kilos of C4 as much as they might for his varmint rifle. This, however, has the disadvantage of gutting a fair-size chunk of your proposal, as I imagine crates of assault rifles being your intended target for this sort of arms trade, not attack helicopter rocket pods. However, it is an option.

This option, I absolutely disagree with. Small arms and the like are, in terms of human rights offenses, just as capable as the big guns. The big guns maybe quicker and more instantaneous, but pistols could kill people just as much as nukes. I'd rather go with the first alternative you presented.

[Chester Pearson]

Strength: Mild.


We are taking control of every weapon in the world. Oh, but that's mild. You don't even have a clue whats next.

Ambassador, did you read the whole resolution, or just the title?

I am just curious if he is just misreading the resolution somehow, or if he in fact likes being a troll....

[Lexicor]

Ambassador, did you read the whole resolution, or just the title?

I am just curious if he is just misreading the resolution somehow, or if he in fact likes being a troll....

Or perhaps an attempt to weaponize the English Language!

[Separatist Peoples]

"On the other hand, you could remove the focus from small arms and their ammunition altogether, and focus on other military systems. Artillery, anti-aircraft platforms, armored vehicles, chemical weapons, conventional explosives, and the related munitions, etc. Generally, the domestic arms trade goes only so far as small arms, and I don't think too many nations will balk strongly at the concept of requiring an end-user certificate for Joe Sixpack's order of 12 kilos of C4 as much as they might for his varmint rifle. This, however, has the disadvantage of gutting a fair-size chunk of your proposal, as I imagine crates of assault rifles being your intended target for this sort of arms trade, not attack helicopter rocket pods. However, it is an option.

This option, I absolutely disagree with. Small arms and the like are, in terms of human rights offenses, just as capable as the big guns. The big guns maybe quicker and more instantaneous, but pistols could kill people just as much as nukes. I'd rather go with the first alternative you presented.

"I am aware. It was a suggestion, with the flaws clearly pointed out. Bringing up concerns without offering solutions is to be a part of the problem here. I would be remiss if I did not bring up all the alternatives for equal review."

[The Wary Walrus]

Walter the Wary Walrus waddled swiftly through the doors of the GA and flopped onto his desk next to his nervous looking translator. The translator had put in several requests to have the universal translator updated to include Walarusian but so far the Building Management had been stalling per their normal habits.

Walter read the proposal over quickly.

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,

He bellowed OROOO ROOOH ROO RO ROOH OROOOOOO.

The translator stepped forward and explained "While the intent here is undeniably good it would seem to be the case that nations which have the capacity to enforce such laws would already have them in place, no? Alternatively if states do not have such laws on the books it would presumably be for a very good reason, whether it be a firm commitment to individual liberties or an inability to apply such a law. Besides, the disarmament category focuses on states, whereas this seems to be a hybrid Gun control/Disarmament resolution. However this next section is certainly an area that the GA can seek to legislate on firmly in the disarmament category.

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

1. There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,
2. There is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, or
3. There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation;

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.

[Bears Armed]

"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."

Under sub-clause 6.b their sale or transfer would also be restricted simply "There is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient,", which would effectively mean that all sales of such items would have to be directly from manufacturer to "final" consumer... which would be inconvenient for producers, who'd probably prefer to ship to retail outlets or at least to middleman wholesalers in many cases; to the existing retailers and middleman wholesalers specialising in such items (such as 'camping goods' stores), who'd lose so much of their business; and to individual customers, who'd now have to deal with each supplier separately instead of just going to a retailer for all of their related needs...
(OOC: speaking as a former scout here...)

And in fact, wouldn't 6.b. also forbid sales in all cases where such items might be bought in order to be given given as presents, bought for use by the customer but then passed on to ["innocent"] friends or relatives when no longer wanted, donated to charity, or inherited?!?

[Araraukar]

I can't believe no-one has suggested this before, but you should rename the proposal "All Ur Weapons Are Belong 2 Us".

OOC: I know, I know, I'm now going to go and set myself on fire for using chatspeak. Also, this whole proposal is for some reason reminding me of the Culture novels... which should mean it's looking good. And doomed.

[Normlpeople]

[quote="Bears Armed";p="21290797"]Under sub-clause 6.b their sale or transfer would also be restricted simply "There is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient,", which would effectively mean that all sales of such items would have to be directly from manufacturer to "final" consumer.../quote]

"Actually, with that interpretation, it could be a backdoor to a gun registry. That would be a complete non-starter for me."

[Sciongrad]

"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."

Under sub-clause 6.b their sale or transfer would also be restricted simply "There is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient,", which would effectively mean that all sales of such items would have to be directly from manufacturer to "final" consumer... which would be inconvenient for producers, who'd probably prefer to ship to retail outlets or at least to middleman wholesalers in many cases; to the existing retailers and middleman wholesalers specialising in such items (such as 'camping goods' stores), who'd lose so much of their business; and to individual customers, who'd now have to deal with each supplier separately instead of just going to a retailer for all of their related needs...

"I don't think that's an appropriate interpretation of the clause. Nothing in the phrase 'initially intended recipient' suggests that such a recipient must be the final recipient. If a manufacturer produces an items, then it is reasonable for them to say their 'originally intended recipient' is a retailer, a warehouse, etc. 'diverted from their originally intended recipient' is quite specific and I have no doubt in my mind that this most certainly would not inhibit gift giving, manufacturing, or anything else you've mentioned."

[Chester Pearson]

I see this is still GD? Shame that it will be destroyed if submitted, a real shame....