[PASSED] Responsible Arms Trading

[Sedgistan]

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

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,

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;

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

3. Defines term "end-user certificate" 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;

4. Assures member nations of 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, future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

5. Requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of armaments within member nations 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;

6. Mandates that 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;

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.

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,

And to this end resolves;

1. 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;

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

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;

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;

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.

"It may seem as if I'm working on too many drafts at once, but Sciongrad finds this issue to be one of its highest priorities in the World Assembly and so I'm reviving this draft. All comments are appreciated."

[Admiratio (Ancient)]

This proposal seems to reach too far as to what is regulated.

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

According to this definition, unarmed vehicles, boots, uniforms, ballistic vests, and helmets could all be considered "armaments" because they have a practical application in a military conflict, subjecting them to regulation under this proposal. Because the above stated items are not weapons, member nations should be allowed to trade these items as they please, with no international regulation. Just because Admiratio could theoretically sell a nation's military some boots and helmets doesn't mean we are purposely contributing to an unlawful military action. If the proposal is amended to consider the above concerns, Admiratio will support it.

[Wrapper]

Does this mean we have to give up our Swiss army knife?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Given more than one effort on this subject has failed heavily, perhaps it is time to be less ambitious. Passing some narrow legislation would be preferable to not passing any legislation. Taking just one or two of the conditions in Article 6 as the subject, or solely concentrating on the end user certification process, for example, might have more chance of success. Nonetheless, we of course offer our continuing (completely notional) support."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer
Server, GnomeBurger

[Chester Pearson]

I like the idea, I really do....

But.... You're going to need to compromise on this Scio....

[Sciongrad]

"I fear that their Excellency's of the Dark Star Republic and the United Federation of Canada may be right. I don't want to waste any more political capital on a project doomed to fail. As such, I've changed the definition to include weapons only and the components necessary in their construction. I've also limited clause six's restrictions, removing the most contentious clauses. I'll be willing to make further concessions as it's deemed necessary, but do keep the feedback coming."

[Chester Pearson]

"I fear that their Excellency's of the Dark Star Republic and the United Federation of Canada may be right. I don't want to waste any more political capital on a project doomed to fail. As such, I've changed the definition to include weapons only and the components necessary in their construction. I've also limited clause six's restrictions, removing the most contentious clauses. I'll be willing to make further concessions as it's deemed necessary, but do keep the feedback coming."

It may be more beneficial for you to attempt to rewrite this as International Security.

Just a suggestion....

[Sciongrad]

"I fear that their Excellency's of the Dark Star Republic and the United Federation of Canada may be right. I don't want to waste any more political capital on a project doomed to fail. As such, I've changed the definition to include weapons only and the components necessary in their construction. I've also limited clause six's restrictions, removing the most contentious clauses. I'll be willing to make further concessions as it's deemed necessary, but do keep the feedback coming."

It may be more beneficial for you to attempt to rewrite this as International Security.

Just a suggestion....

"My goal here is political expediency, so I'll look into this. Although many of the measures already in place may constitute a category change as it is. My biggest concern is the definition, which is still not as precise as I'd like it. If anyone has any suggestions to that end, please don't hesitate."

[Sciongrad]

"After further consideration, I'm keeping this in the global disarmament category. While I want this resolution to pass, I don't want to ram a global disarmament proposal into the international security category."

[Chester Pearson]

"After further consideration, I'm keeping this in the global disarmament category. While I want this resolution to pass, I don't want to ram a global disarmament proposal into the international security category."

It won't pass as GD and you know it better than anyone.....

[Sciongrad]

"After further consideration, I'm keeping this in the global disarmament category. While I want this resolution to pass, I don't want to ram a global disarmament proposal into the international security category."

It won't pass as GD and you know it better than anyone.....

"I'm going to see how the debate progress before I change it to international disarmament. But I'll keep it in the back of my mind."

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I'm bringing this back. I plan on tightening up the definition to prevent a repeat of the last time this went to vote, but other comments are also appreciated!

[The Great Leap Forward]

Following strictly the precept that "power comes from the barrel of a gun" and steadfastly opposing terrorism and social disharmony in all its forms, the People's Republic favors in its essence restrictions on the transfer of weaponry and sensible limits on the arms trade.

However, in keeping with the guiding principles of the National People's Congress in the most recent "Two Meetings" and having adopted the plan of Comprehensively Deepening Reform, we lodge solemn representation as regards the current wording of section 6, clause C. This clause is vague and open to extreme interpretation; it is wrong-headed to derive such impacts on any nation from the importation of weaponry. The People's Revolution could not have been achieved without years of struggle; the Great Leap Forward could not have stood up from years of oppression and feudalism without armed struggle against rightist forces. For those capitalist-roaders on the outside, this was "socioeconomic deterioration."

Any movement for the liberation of the proletarian classes is classed by the capital class as "socioeconomic deterioration." We will not support such wrong-headed thinking.

Du Zhidun
毒滞钝
Special People's Representative to the World Assembly
Commissioner for Leisure, Architecture, and Political Re-education

[Parti Ouvrier]

"I fear that their Excellency's of the Dark Star Republic and the United Federation of Canada may be right. I don't want to waste any more political capital on a project doomed to fail. As such, I've changed the definition to include weapons only and the components necessary in their construction. I've also limited clause six's restrictions, removing the most contentious clauses. I'll be willing to make further concessions as it's deemed necessary, but do keep the feedback coming."

It may be more beneficial for you to attempt to rewrite this as International Security.

Just a suggestion....

What a surprise, we can't have a global disarmament can we? You are literally obsessed with International Security.

[Normlpeople]

What a surprise, we can't have a global disarmament can we? You are literally obsessed with International Security.

"You don't feel international security is important, ambassador? "

OOC: Chester is a realist. Global Disarmament proposals are pretty much DOA with the current mood of the assembly. I would also try to swing it to international security, shouldn't be hard to do, given the extra costs associated with the enforcement of this act.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Chester is a realist. Global Disarmament proposals are pretty much DOA with the current mood of the assembly. I would also try to swing it to international security, shouldn't be hard to do, given the extra costs associated with the enforcement of this act.

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.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Chester is a realist. Global Disarmament proposals are pretty much DOA with the current mood of the assembly. I would also try to swing it to international security, shouldn't be hard to do, given the extra costs associated with the enforcement of this act.

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.

[Imperializt Russia]

I can note one issue and one contravention.

Per 6c, "if suspect that armaments will be used to inflict socioeconomic deterioration"
Any large-scale conflict will result in socioeconomic deterioration from attrition, war spending, limited civil industry output and destruction of infrastructure.
Targeting all of these can be considered valid in large-scale warfare - if you "deteriorate" the enemy's industry, infrastructure and manpower, their forces will be commensurately less supported and less able to sustain their fighting.
Consider North Korea, which is estimated as having ~120 days of rice and grain supply for the fighting military in war. Destroying these facilities would completely cripple the North's already limited ability to fight. Ditto their limited fuel and ammunition stockpiles. If you can force your opponent into a literal choice between starvation and capitulation, that will end the war very early.
Or you can just wait for them to finish expending chemical-armed Scuds and chemical shells at Seoul. I understand that line of logic will be unpopular.

The resolution could be contravened by shipping material that may not be considered "armament" (demilitarised firearms, armoured vehicles etc) and also supplying manufacturing facilities for the production of the "armament" components - guns in armoured vehicles, critical components in firearms, ammunition etc.

[Normlpeople]

"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."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Don't use "and/or" in the proposal language. It's legally ambiguous. Just use "or".

[Sciongrad]

Don't use "and/or" in the proposal language. It's legally ambiguous. Just use "or".

"Done."

"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'm sorry, but I still don't see the issue. This doesn't ban the trade of anything at all, including nuclear weapons, tanks, etc., unless there's reason to suspect they'll be used in violation of clause 6. Perhaps you can clarify your objection taking that into consideration."

[Imperializt Russia]

Why is conquest and expropriation no longer considered "acceptable" in the WA?

[Sciongrad]

Why is conquest and expropriation no longer considered "acceptable" in the WA?

"For two reasons. Firstly, the World Assembly should not tolerate violence as a means of conquest. The World Assembly has, on numerous occasions, expressed that achieving peace and stability is one of its goal. Secondly, each nation is entitled to its own sovereignty, and the World Assembly should not allow its member nations to violate that sovereignty."

OOC: In the real world, wars of aggression are condemned by the UN, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes the conducting of a war of aggression as a crime against peace, and within the ICC's jurisdiction.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Real world" arms traders and the governments that permit them to trade are notoriously unable to actually measure the intentions of a recipient state.
See the billions of dollars poured into Russia by western firms, which may have directly contributed to the annexation of Crimea.

Also the chemical sales to Iraq and Syria. Made some years before the possession of chemicals by those states became politically "hot" topics.
I don't see this as enforceable.

Say my state armoury sells a thousand armoured vehicles and several tonnes of small arms ammunition to a state. At some subsequent time, this state invades another state.

Soo, what happens? The WA inexplicably just closes down my state armoury? mandated regime change? Kicked out of the WA?

[Sciongrad]

"Real world" arms traders and the governments that permit them to trade are notoriously unable to actually measure the intentions of a recipient state.
See the billions of dollars poured into Russia by western firms, which may have directly contributed to the annexation of Crimea.

Also the chemical sales to Iraq and Syria. Made some years before the possession of chemicals by those states became politically "hot" topics.
I don't see this as enforceable.

Say my state armoury sells a thousand armoured vehicles and several tonnes of small arms ammunition to a state. At some subsequent time, this state invades another state.

Soo, what happens? The WA inexplicably just closes down my state armoury? mandated regime change? Kicked out of the WA?

OOC: You referenced some RL countries, so I'm assuming this is OOC. Anyways, in response to your question about "what happens." Nothing, because that type of scenario is not prohibited by the resolution. This piece of legislation prohibits the trade of armaments if there is reason to suspect the weapons will be misused. Member nations cannot be held retroactively accountable for an action that didn't violate the resolution at the time, therefore, it cannot "punish" member nations for the reasons you mentioned. Remember, this resolution prohibits the action of knowingly providing groups or nations that will violate clause 6 with weapons. Trading weapons to a state that abuses them when there was no way of predicting their actions is not only not covered by this resolution, but impossible to enforce.