[PASSED] Responsible Arms Trading

[Lexicor]

OOC: In my limited experience with the World Assembly, attempting any legislation related to bodies like the UNODC or the Geneva Conventions usually ends with the submitted proposal being lit on fire by the heavily militarized NS. The ICC being a shining testament to how much we all love explosions and beer here! (Mostly explosions.)

---

Edits: I have more time than I thought

"This resolution has our tenative support. I'll be running the showy here until the damn Ambassador gets back from his prostitute treasure hunting expedition in Lillputiamia. Since the Lemonade Stand is closed today, would anyone care for a glass? We're trying to get the OBM to allow us to sell it in the Strangers Bar but we get circle-jerked by their forms. Also, if anyone sees a form named B-6/2.4 could they pretty please send it up to the Lexicorian WA Office."

*Remy Junket clicked his blue pen, licked his lips and got down to work, pushing away the drafts of International Aviation and Archaeological Digs away for the moment*

---

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its position of international peace and goodwill,

We are talking about the same General Assembly are we? Because this GA has a long history of shredding positions of international peace and goodwill.

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

Governments tend to be the ones that need regulating. Not Billy Joe's Gun Shoppe.

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 allow are foreign policy and core interests to be tarnished by non-WA states capable of inciting genocide? This runs into the same issue attempts to ban nuclear weapons and the like in past sessions of the Assembly. The geopolitical environment is different. We as states must not have our options to defend ourselves and our national interests subverted. This raises a big red flag for us lemon lovers of Lexicor.

OOC: NS =/= RL. In Nukes and War at least. If you regulate the proxy sale of munitions to destabilize governments states don't like in the World Assembly, you put a significant amount of member states here in great jeoprady of losing conflicts. Tread with caution..


And to this end resolves;

1. The term "armament" shall be defined as any equipment, including but not necessarily limited to firearms, munitions, and other device(s) that may possess a practical application in armed military conflict, including the parts necessary in their construction or production;

Changes noted in italics.

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

Extraterritorial is a word that means the same thing and encompasses airports, embassies, international waters, WA Buildings. :3

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;

No issues here.

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;

OOC: Reasonable Nation Theory applies here me'thinks in some ways. | IC: Vive le marche libre. Get government out of firearms!

5. 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;

What sane company wouldn't have this process in place!? All [legal] companies operating (legally) have to make a contract with their end user. This amounts to petty paperwork that doesn't actually do much to stop arms trafficking. The big problem here is not companies but imperialist and autocratic states. Which also happen to make up a large part of this body... so...

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

There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,

OOC: What happened to mandatory compliance!? | IC: We can support this.

There is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient, or

We recommend this clause be stricken out. It is way too broad and doesn't really add strength to the intended goal you are trying to achieve. Who cares if two guns, one for Roger and one for Shawn get mixed up and used for different purposes. Under current langauge, they're criminals now! | OOC: I know this is a nitpick but...

There is reason to suspect they will be used to initiate, or aid the aggressor in, a war of conquest or expropriation;

We understand the sentiment behind this, but the World Assembly has not to Lexicors knowledge has not created any formal process of Rules of Engagement, or a general framework in what constitutes an aggressor. We fear that this word opens up the possibility to loopholes.

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

.
We can support this.

[Pommern Samoa]

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

Let's go through what that may include

All hunting weapons, including bows and slings
Any firearms, from antique flint-locks to children's BB guns
Any ammunition, from distress flares to confetti novelty shells
Any other device which may possess a practical application in conflict, which may include spoons, socks, crowbars, sunglasses, porta-pottys, novelty noise makers and plastic bobbleheads
Including the parts necessary in construction or production, such as raw billet steel or delicious whole grain bread
Any equipment possibly used to manufacture any of the above, from a tabletop hobby lathe to an oil refinery

[Sciongrad]

We are talking about the same General Assembly are we? Because this GA has a long history of shredding positions of international peace and goodwill.

"No, it hasn't. The World Assembly has passed legislation against genocide, nuclear weapons, rights of neutral states, among other topics. It might have an uncomfortably militarized timbre right now, but to say it has a history of 'shredding positions of international peace and goodwill' is wrong."

Governments tend to be the ones that need regulating. Not Billy Joe's Gun Shoppe.

"This resolution would likely have no impact on Billy Joe's Gun Shoppe. Unless, of course, Billy Joe's Gun Shop arms terrorists with weapons, or tinpot dictators with ammunition."

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 allow are foreign policy and core interests to be tarnished by non-WA states capable of inciting genocide? This runs into the same issue attempts to ban nuclear weapons and the like in past sessions of the Assembly. The geopolitical environment is different. We as states must not have our options to defend ourselves and our national interests subverted. This raises a big red flag for us lemon lovers of Lexicor.

"This position is entirely non-sensical. Not being able to sell armaments to those intent on using them for genocide somehow puts member nations at a tactical disadvantage? I genuinely cannot see how this even remotely inhibits national security."

OOC: NS =/= RL. In Nukes and War at least. If you regulate the proxy sale of munitions to destabilize governments states don't like in the World Assembly, you put a significant amount of member states here in great jeoprady of losing conflicts. Tread with caution.

OOC: You have to elaborate here. I don't know what you're saying.

Extraterritorial is a word that means the same thing and encompasses airports, embassies, international waters, WA Buildings. :3

OOC: Extraterritorial entities is much more specific than what the original clause stated. I can rephrase the clause for clarity and include the term extraterritorial entities, but replacing the original phrasing with extraterritorial entities would exclude most of what that clause was meant to cover.

Reasonable Nation Theory applies here me'thinks in some ways.

OOC: I don't think Reasonable Nation Theory means what you think it means.

5. 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;

What sane company wouldn't have this process in place!? All [legal] companies operating (legally) have to make a contract with their end user. This amounts to petty paperwork that doesn't actually do much to stop arms trafficking. The big problem here is not companies but imperialist and autocratic states. Which also happen to make up a large part of this body... so...

This line of reasoning has several issues. First, it's reductive. Placing legally binding limitations on armaments brokers is not as useless as you make it out to be. Member nations are legally obligated, by the text of this resolution, to enforce its mandates, and end user certification will make their ability to accomplish that much easier. The other big issue with your argument is that it conflates permitting autocratic states to exist (as is required by the WA's most basic rules) and not being able to address the issues that often come with them. You're right in saying that the WA cannot get rid of autocratic states, but we can limit them, as the WA has done countless times in the past. And finally, you're either so blinded by your hatred for government regulation or you're just naive when it comes to how businesses operate, but to argue that a multinational weapons company selling weapons to the regional fascist militia group isn't the issue is actually risible.

OOC: What happened to mandatory compliance!?

"Mandatory compliance doesn't apply to non-member nations, nor does it prevent private individuals from contravening international law."

We recommend this clause be stricken out. It is way too broad and doesn't really add strength to the intended goal you are trying to achieve. Who cares if two guns, one for Roger and one for Shawn get mixed up and used for different purposes. Under current langauge, they're criminals now!

"First of all, Roger and Shawn are not criminals according to the clause. The transfer was illegal, and whoever was responsible for intentionally diverting the armaments from their initial recipient is criminally responsible. If it was unintentional, obviously there is no legal issue. This clause exists solely to prevent armaments brokers from circumventing the requir'ements of this proposal by sending weapons to anyone but their intended customer (who must be a legal recipient, according to this resolution).

We understand the sentiment behind this, but the World Assembly has not to Lexicors knowledge has not created any formal process of Rules of Engagement, or a general framework in what constitutes an aggressor. We fear that this word opens up the possibility to loopholes.

"Member nations are run by competent, literate adults, I hope. While I, too, would like to see a resolution on Rules of Engagement, the lack thereof does not preclude the possibility of passing a resolution that mentions aggressors or wars of expropriation. I trust a dictionary should suffice in making this clause understandable.

[The Dark Star Republic]

There is reason to suspect that they will be used in contravention of extant World Assembly legislation on human rights,

OOC: What happened to mandatory compliance!?

OOC: It got twisted into a ridiculous parody of itself by people unable to distinguish between mandatory compliance - wherein every state is required to pass laws bringing them into compliance with WA law - and magical compliance - wherein it is physically impossible to break WA laws. I swear, during the ICC repeal debate, someone argued that the ICC was redundant because the WA had already banned genocide and therefore genocide literally couldn't ever happen!

[Ainocra]

ooc:

shhh the gnomes might hear you

[Lexicor]

OOC: What happened to mandatory compliance!?

OOC: It got twisted into a ridiculous parody of itself by people unable to distinguish between mandatory compliance - wherein every state is required to pass laws bringing them into compliance with WA law - and magical compliance - wherein it is physically impossible to break WA laws. I swear, during the ICC repeal debate, someone argued that the ICC was redundant because the WA had already banned genocide and therefore genocide literally couldn't ever happen!

OOC: I shouldn't write responses at 2 A.M

[The Land of Beer]

Opposed . We will not support any measures to restrict .. disarm .. limit or in any way interefere with our weapons systems or ownership of any weapons system by our citizens that they want.

[Imperializt Russia]

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."

In his scenario, he's not knowingly providing to those users.

[Yakzistan]

My country will not like this here draft, they will have a uprising because of this passed

[Separatist Peoples]

My country will not like this here draft, they will have a uprising because of this passed

"How will they get the guns? "

"In all seriousness, ambassador, what part about this is untenable to you?"

[The Palentine]

On general principles the Palentine opposes this drek. Of course its soooooooo fluffy and feel good the nannystates, fluffies, and all those others who won't go to the bathroom without the Festering Snakepit's permission will probally support this and cause it to pass(should it ever come up to vote). Vox populi, vox humbug!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Mereon]

This resolution is a breach of individual rights, and, if it passes, the Republic of Mereon will immediately resign from the World Assembly.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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

Let's go through what that may include

All hunting weapons, including bows and slings
Any firearms, from antique flint-locks to children's BB guns
Any ammunition, from distress flares to confetti novelty shells
Any other device which may possess a practical application in conflict, which may include spoons, socks, crowbars, sunglasses, porta-pottys, novelty noise makers and plastic bobbleheads
Including the parts necessary in construction or production, such as raw billet steel or delicious whole grain bread
Any equipment possibly used to manufacture any of the above, from a tabletop hobby lathe to an oil refinery

Ambassador, if your military forces have a practical use for confetti shells, plastic bobbleheads, or air-powered T-shirt cannons in a military conflict (or, as in the focus herein, aiding and abetting genocide, enslavement, or unprovoked conquest), then frankly we should be forbidden from shipping them to you. Because that all sounds... perverted, when put in a battlefield context. Eww.

On the other hand, you could read the resolution, see its actual intent, note that it doesn't actually prevent you from selling weapons to those who would use them for legitimate ends, and stop making a sasquatch out of a salamander.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Could those ranting and screaming about this explain what their actual problem with the proposal is?

[The Palentine]

Could those ranting and screaming about this explain what their actual problem with the proposal is?

Very simple. I don't trust the silly buggers to stop with just this fluffy piece of do-gooding drek. If the buggers have their way with this, the next time they'll try to go farther and ban civilian gun ownership. Give a fluffy nannystater a little rope and they'll try to become the next Tom Mix.
Besides, I'm a nat-sover. I want the Snakepit to interfere with my nation and its people as little as possible.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Sciongrad]

I plan on reviving this draft, and have made the following addition to placate the more militaristic corners of the WA who worked so tirelessly to stomp on this resolution the last time it went to vote:

"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;"

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Should be "Assures member nations of". Although I'm pretty sure it's been said before that such blocking language wouldn't be allowed as it "blocks off a whole category", if the Gun Control category were removed as it's been suggested it might, it would be interesting to see whether that were no longer the case and a gun blocker would be allowed.

"Well, not that interesting.

"Not a fan of "relevant governments" in Article 5. Who is to determine "relevance"? If it's meant to refer to "legitimate governments" or governments exercising jurisdiction or sovereignty then use those terms.

"That said, every time one of these gets shot down it's not because of the operative section but because of ridiculous wrangling over the definition of armaments, so we're not very optimistic that incremental changes to the text will do much."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sciongrad]

"Should be "Assures member nations of". Although I'm pretty sure it's been said before that such blocking language wouldn't be allowed as it "blocks off a whole category", if the Gun Control category were removed as it's been suggested it might, it would be interesting to see whether that were no longer the case and a gun blocker would be allowed.

"I anticipated this criticism and plan on adding a GAR#68-esque exception. Although hopefully with wording that is slightly more stringent than what NEF boasts."

"Not a fan of "relevant governments" in Article 5. Who is to determine "relevance"? If it's meant to refer to "legitimate governments" or governments exercising jurisdiction or sovereignty then use those terms.

"Fair enough."

"That said, every time one of these gets shot down it's not because of the operative section but because of ridiculous wrangling over the definition of armaments, so we're not very optimistic that incremental changes to the text will do much."

"I know this much, but Sciongrad is all but completely unwilling to change the definition significantly. I'd be willing (very reluctantly) to rephrase the definition to limit "armaments" solely to weapons and munitions, but even then, the scope of the definition is already so wildly exaggerated by its opponents that I don't know if anything short of an exhaustive list will be effective at sating the beast."

[New Finnish Republic]

How will this resolution be monitored? Nation A can legally say that they're not supplying Nation B armaments, however there'd be nothing stopping an under-the-table deal from taking place, especially if said transaction would supply a great deal of income for Nation A.

[Druzhinin Imperium]

So basically if this passes a single non WA nation will have more fire power than all WA nations combined? I support this, sink the ship known as WA all you like.

Not that my nation is ever going to disarm, that would be crazy.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

So basically if this passes a single non WA nation will have more fire power than all WA nations combined? I support this, sink the ship known as WA all you like.

Not that my nation is ever going to disarm, that would be crazy.

And how exactly did you come to that determination? Let me guess, you put all the words into a hat, and made up your own resolution to read right? /sarcasm

If you can't be bothered to read the damn thing, don't bother commenting on it.

[Sciongrad]

So basically if this passes a single non WA nation will have more fire power than all WA nations combined? I support this, sink the ship known as WA all you like.

Not that my nation is ever going to disarm, that would be crazy.

OOC: What are you talking about?

So basically if this passes a single non WA nation will have more fire power than all WA nations combined? I support this, sink the ship known as WA all you like.

Not that my nation is ever going to disarm, that would be crazy.

And how exactly did you come to that determination? Let me guess, you put all the words into a hat, and made up your own resolution to read right? /sarcasm

If you can't be bothered to read the damn thing, don't bother commenting on it.

In fairness, the thread title is practically asking for comments like these. I'll probably have to change it soon.

[The Arkam Asylum]

I would never support this and ever WA member in my region would vote against it

[Autistican]

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

The General Assembly,






7. Prohibits the sale or transfer of armaments 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;

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.

weapons and armaments,

And to this end resolves;

n;

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.[/box][/spoiler]
"

This is borderline policing of WA nation, which is not allowed. Nations have every right to sell weapons to non WA nations.

[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;"