[DEFEATED] Biological Weapons Accord

[Bergnovinaia]

Thanks to a lovely repeal and failed insta-replacement, we'll have to start back at square one. This is a somewhat redrafted version of the original GA #65 (which I authored). Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated.

Biological Weapons Accord

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Bergnovinaia

Description: The WA,

DEFINES biological weapons as:
a. Microbial or other biological agents or toxins that cannot be justified for peaceful or prophylactic purposes.
b. Weapons designed to use any such agents for hostile purposes, including equipment used solely in the production, delivery or use of those weapons.

APPALLED at the devastation biological weapons can wreak on civilian and military populations alike;

REALIZING that the disarmament of biological weapons will aid efforts in international peace and diplomacy;

DECLARES that the risk of use of biological weapons infecting non-involved nations and civilian populations is not worth utilizing the weapons;

COMMENDS nations that already do not use biological weapons;

Hereby:

1. REQUIRES member states to disarm their biological arsenals--including all of their currently stockpiled biological weapons and the facilities used to store them, repurpose or dismantle facilities used to produce biological weapons, never acquire or possess a biological weapon, or assist any non-member nation in any way to develop, acquire, or deploy such weapons (except for article 5).

2. CALLS FOR these weapons be disarmed in the safest way possible in order to protect the environment and the lives, property, and health of everyday citizens.

3. AFFIRMS that member nations have the right to attack or defend themselves with other weapons in accordance with past and future WA legislation.

4.DEMANDS that precautionary measures to halt the trafficking of these weapons or agents are taken.

5.ALLOWS member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes, either nationally or internationally, which includes and does not exclude, experimentation and implementations for vaccinations and other preventative treatments, testing for decontamination purposes, or other peaceful purposes. When agents are used in accordance with this article, appropriate and effective measures must be taken to ensure safety and security.

6. CREATES and CHARGES the World Assembly Biological Weapons Commission (WABWC) with the tasks of ensuring that: all WA member nations comply by this resolution, aiding in the safe dismantling, decommissioning, and disposal of biological weapons, coordinating international efforts to restrict international trafficking of biological weapons, and determining if nations are overstepping the limits allowed by exemption clause 5.

7. The WABWC shall develop and distribute information to member nations on best practices on defending civilian and military populations against the effects of biological attack. Member nations are encouraged, moreover, to exchange such information with each other as well as with the WABWC.

8. The WABWC shall also be charged with determining proper periods for each individual member nation on a nation-to-nation basis for dismantling their biological weapon arsenals. Various factors to be considered by the WABWC when formulating a proper time period for dismantling biological arsenals shall include, but is not limited to the following: economic state of a nation, DEFCON rating of a nation, environmental state of a nation, and political and social stability of a nation.

[Darenjo]

Looks pretty good.

Isn't part 2 of the definition partly redundant, since it mentions toxins twice?

[Bergnovinaia]

Looks pretty good.

Isn't part 2 of the definition partly redundant, since it mentions toxins twice?

Thanks! Um... yeah. So I altered that.

[Diogenes Epicurius]

How am I supposed to develop and use biological weapons against non-WA members if it is forbidden by the WA for me to do anything but peaceful research into them?

[Glen-Rhodes]

How am I supposed to develop and use biological weapons against non-WA members if it is forbidden by the WA for me to do anything but peaceful research into them?

Why do you need to develop and use biological weapons against non-member states? Why are the people in non-member states less worthy of protection than the people in member states?

[Glen-Rhodes]

DEFINES biological weapons as:
1)Any form of an infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury.
2)This includes but is not limited to biologically-derived toxins and poisons, living microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and fungi), and any chemicals that are produced by microorganisms, plants, or animals.
3)Any synthetic agent that mimics agents listed in the above two sections.
4) Exemptions from this definition include biological agents that are used for pest control or other peaceful and non-proliferation purposes (see article 5).

This definition seems overly robust. It's essentially trying to say that if a biological agent isn't being used for peaceful or prophylactic purposes, then it's a biological weapon. So, why not simply say that? Saying what a biological weapon isn't is better in this case than trying to say what it is. You'll also avoid problems of accidentally excluding things that could be used for hostile purposes.

1. REQUIRES member states to disarm their biological arsenal, never acquire or possess a biological weapon, or assist any non-member nation in any way to develop, acquire, or deploy such weapons (except for article 5).

What constitutes a biological arsenal? The weapons, the vats of biological agents, the factories that produce them? All of that?

5.ALLOWS member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes, either nationally or internationally, which includes and does not exclude, experimentation and implementations for vaccinations and other preventative treatments, testing for decontamination purposes, or other peaceful purposes. However, appropriate and effective measures are taken with regard to safety and security.

How are we going to enforce this? What is a 'peaceful purpose' and how can we ensure that the term isn't abused? What are these appropriate and effective measures and who determines them?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Cerberion]

Description: The WA,

DEFINES biological weapons as:
1)Any form of an infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury.
2)This includes but is not limited to biologically-derived toxins and poisons, living microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and fungi), and any chemicals that are produced by microorganisms, plants, or animals.
3)Any synthetic agent that mimics agents listed in the above two sections.
4) Exemptions from this definition include biological agents that are used for pest control or other peaceful and non-proliferation purposes (see article 5).

It's possible that this has come up before, but synthetic extends this to cover chemical weapons and there are a great number of chemicals that could simulate biological weapons while not having a biological delivery system.
These chemicals should not be included in this resolution, IMO.

APPALLED at the devastation biological weapons can wreak on civilian and military populations alike;

REALIZING that the disarmament of biological weapons will aid efforts in international
peace and dimplomacy;

diplomacy

DECLARES that the risk of use of biological weapons infecting non-involved nations and civilian population is not worth utilizing the weapons;

Hum, it could be worth it to some nations as a last ditch defense.
I'm mainly not likeing "not worth using.". I'm sure this could be dressed up. It's a purely subjective measurement to simply say that they are not worth using.

COMMENDS nations that already do not use biological weapons;

Hereby:

1. REQUIRES member states to disarm their biological arsenal, never acquire or possess a biological weapon, or assist any non-member nation in any way to develop, acquire, or deploy such weapons (except for article 5).

2. CALLS FOR these weapons be disarmed in the safest way possible in order to protect the environment and the lives, property, and health of everyday citizens.

3. AFFIRMS that member nations have the right to attack or defend themselves with other weapons in accordance with past and future WA legislation.

4.DEMANDS that precautionary measures to halt the trafficking of these weapons or agents are taken.

5.ALLOWS member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes, either nationally or internationally, which includes and does not exclude, experimentation and implementations for vaccinations and other preventative treatments, testing for decontamination purposes, or other peaceful purposes. However, appropriate and effective measures are taken with regard to safety and security.

I'm not optomistic that this will get enough support but I'll wish you luck.

[Bergnovinaia]

Description: The WA,

DEFINES biological weapons as:
1)Any form of an infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury.
2)This includes but is not limited to biologically-derived toxins and poisons, living microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and fungi), and any chemicals that are produced by microorganisms, plants, or animals.
3)Any synthetic agent that mimics agents listed in the above two sections.
4) Exemptions from this definition include biological agents that are used for pest control or other peaceful and non-proliferation purposes (see article 5).

It's possible that this has come up before, but synthetic extends this to cover chemical weapons and there are a great number of chemicals that could simulate biological weapons while not having a biological delivery system.
These chemicals should not be included in this resolution, IMO.

APPALLED at the devastation biological weapons can wreak on civilian and military populations alike;

REALIZING that the disarmament of biological weapons will aid efforts in international
peace and dimplomacy;

diplomacy

DECLARES that the risk of use of biological weapons infecting non-involved nations and civilian population is not worth utilizing the weapons;

Hum, it could be worth it to some nations as a last ditch defense.
I'm mainly not likeing "not worth using.". I'm sure this could be dressed up. It's a purely subjective measurement to simply say that they are not worth using.

COMMENDS nations that already do not use biological weapons;

Hereby:

1. REQUIRES member states to disarm their biological arsenal, never acquire or possess a biological weapon, or assist any non-member nation in any way to develop, acquire, or deploy such weapons (except for article 5).

2. CALLS FOR these weapons be disarmed in the safest way possible in order to protect the environment and the lives, property, and health of everyday citizens.

3. AFFIRMS that member nations have the right to attack or defend themselves with other weapons in accordance with past and future WA legislation.

4.DEMANDS that precautionary measures to halt the trafficking of these weapons or agents are taken.

5.ALLOWS member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes, either nationally or internationally, which includes and does not exclude, experimentation and implementations for vaccinations and other preventative treatments, testing for decontamination purposes, or other peaceful purposes. However, appropriate and effective measures are taken with regard to safety and security.

I'm not optomistic that this will get enough support but I'll wish you luck.

Well... it did the last time around, and I've only changed certain things, but thanks for the feedback!

[Moronist Decisions]

We like this in general. Why must we have a committee to enforce this?

However, appropriate and effective measures are taken with regard to safety and security.

Sounds wrong. We suggest a change to

"When agents are used in accordance with this article, appropriate and effective measures must be taken to ensure safety and security."

[Bergnovinaia]

DEFINES biological weapons as:
1)Any form of an infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury.
2)This includes but is not limited to biologically-derived toxins and poisons, living microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa, viruses, and fungi), and any chemicals that are produced by microorganisms, plants, or animals.
3)Any synthetic agent that mimics agents listed in the above two sections.
4) Exemptions from this definition include biological agents that are used for pest control or other peaceful and non-proliferation purposes (see article 5).

This definition seems overly robust. It's essentially trying to say that if a biological agent isn't being used for peaceful or prophylactic purposes, then it's a biological weapon. So, why not simply say that? Saying what a biological weapon isn't is better in this case than trying to say what it is. You'll also avoid problems of accidentally excluding things that could be used for hostile purposes.

Well, I'm not enirely sure about how I'd go about changing it that way. Exact sugestions, por favor?

What constitutes a biological arsenal? The weapons, the vats of biological agents, the factories that produce them? All of that?

Sure... see red edit.

How are we going to enforce this? What is a 'peaceful purpose' and how can we ensure that the term isn't abused? What are these appropriate and effective measures and who determines them?

Again, see red edit, article 6.

[Cerberion]

I guess the reason I'd be surprised if it got through is that we basically just repealed the same thing.

Still I dislike biological weapons so I'm going to support it.

6. CREATES and CHARGES the World Assembly Biological Weapons Commision (WABWC) with the tasks of ensuring that all WA member nations comply by this law, aiding in the safely dismantling and disposal of bioglocial weapons, coordinating international efforts to restrict international trafficking of biological weapons, and determining if nations are overstepping the limits allowed by exemption clause 5.

While I dislike yet another watchdog group, I think it's necessary in this case. Biological spelled incorrectly BTW.

[Moronist Decisions]

Clause 6 has a slight error.

aiding in the safely dismantling and disposal of bioglocial weapons

sounds wrong and has a spelling mistake. We suggest: "aid nations to safety dismantle, decommission and dispose of biological weapons."

We recommend adding "decommission"

Also, in 1, we recommend allowing nations to repurpose facilities associated with their biological arsenal.

[Bergnovinaia]

I guess the reason I'd be surprised if it got through is that we basically just repealed the same thing.

Still I dislike biological weapons so I'm going to support it.

6. CREATES and CHARGES the World Assembly Biological Weapons Commision (WABWC) with the tasks of ensuring that all WA member nations comply by this law, aiding in the safely dismantling and disposal of bioglocial weapons, coordinating international efforts to restrict international trafficking of biological weapons, and determining if nations are overstepping the limits allowed by exemption clause 5.

While I dislike yet another watchdog group, I think it's necessary in this case. Biological spelled incorrectly BTW.

Crap... I fixed it.

Clause 6 has a slight error.

aiding in the safely dismantling and disposal of bioglocial weapons

sounds wrong and has a spelling mistake. We suggest: "aid nations to safety dismantle, decommission and dispose of biological weapons."

We recommend adding "decommission"

Also, in 1, we recommend allowing nations to repurpose facilities associated with their biological arsenal.

Done, done, and done.

[Moronist Decisions]

Should nations be allowed to repurpose facilities used to store biological weapons? (I think they should ...)

[Morlago]

I think its fine. Support.

[Bergnovinaia]

Should nations be allowed to repurpose facilities used to store biological weapons? (I think they should ...)

Well... if they are not to be in possesion of bio-weapons, that would be kind of pointless.

[Darenjo]

Should nations be allowed to repurpose facilities used to store biological weapons? (I think they should ...)

Well... if they are not to be in possesion of bio-weapons, that would be kind of pointless.

Also, once the bioweapons are disposed of, I highly doubt that a nation needs the permission of the WA to decide to repurpose a warehouse...Of course, that's just my opinion. I know that some more radical IntFeds see it differently.

[Bergnovinaia]

Well... if they are not to be in possesion of bio-weapons, that would be kind of pointless.

Also, once the bioweapons are disposed of, I highly doubt that a nation needs the permission of the WA to decide to repurpose a warehouse...Of course, that's just my opinion. I know that some more radical IntFeds see it differently.

Yeah... that's true. I guess I'll just leave that clause.


Anyways, other thoughts or suggesitons?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

6. CREATES and CHARGES the World Assembly Biological Weapons Commision (WABWC) with the tasks of ensuring that all WA member nations comply by this law, aiding in the safe dismantling, decomissioning, and disposal of biological weapons, coordinating international efforts to restrict international trafficking of biological weapons, and determining if nations are overstepping the limits allowed by exemption clause 5.

Minor edit suggestion. Not called a "law", but a "resolution". Then we need a colon between "ensuring that" and "all WA member nations", and finally another m for the "decomissioning".

More to follow.

[Bergnovinaia]

6. CREATES and CHARGES the World Assembly Biological Weapons Commision (WABWC) with the tasks of ensuring that all WA member nations comply by this law, aiding in the safe dismantling, decomissioning, and disposal of biological weapons, coordinating international efforts to restrict international trafficking of biological weapons, and determining if nations are overstepping the limits allowed by exemption clause 5.

Minor edit suggestion. Not called a "law", but a "resolution". Then we need a colon between "ensuring that" and "all WA member nations", and finally another m for the "decomissioning".

More to follow.

Fixed. And I look forwar to further comments.

[Communal Ecotopia]

We fully support this Accord. It may be useful to contemplate how the monitoring agency would work, however.

[Bahgum]

So, did anyone else see the word 'draft' after 'biological weapons' and think flatulence? You would have if you'd met my mate Dave.

[Parti Ouvrier]

You have our support for this proposal.

CJ
WA Ambassador to the DRPO

[Bergnovinaia]

So, did anyone else see the word 'draft' after 'biological weapons' and think flatulence? You would have if you'd met my mate Dave.

Actually, no, because draft means "a first attempt" in these parts...

[Moronist Decisions]

So, did anyone else see the word 'draft' after 'biological weapons' and think flatulence? You would have if you'd met my mate Dave.

Actually, no, because draft means "a first attempt" in these parts...

Bahgum - funny word play.

That said, we support this.