[PASSED] Responsible Arms Trading

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I'm assuming this is OOC, because you referenced Voltaire, so I'll respond OOC as well. My IC ambassador and Sciongrad are both ideologically opposed to your "free trade, even if it supports genocide" idea, and I don't want to get into an extended debate out of character over the issue, unless you want to bring it back IC.

OOC: Apologies on missing the tag.

IC: As both a member of the New Liberals and as directed by the coalition government, the official policy of this delegation has always been for the protection of liberties whether condemnable or commendable. Fundamentally, that is the principal principle matter of principles which our principal delegate has been directed to convey by the principal Chair of the Foreign Committee.

[Blaccakre]

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;

Under this, the "parts necessary" to construct or produce actual weapons are themselves weapons. That's ridiculous. Our government is quite capable of distinguishing, say, the computer chips that go on to be used in a smart phone from the computer chips that go on to be used in a bomb. Just because that same chip could be used as a part of a weapon does not make it an armament, any more than a sock is an "armament" because it could be stuffed down an opposing soldier's throat while you berate him for failing to respect the Imperial majesty of Blaccakre!

We manufacture a wide range of parts that, I suppose, could be used to build weapons. That doesn't make them military arms. They could also be used to build tractors, agricultural systems, and desktop computers.

[Sciongrad]

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;

Under this, the "parts necessary" to construct or produce actual weapons are themselves weapons. That's ridiculous. Our government is quite capable of distinguishing, say, the computer chips that go on to be used in a smart phone from the computer chips that go on to be used in a bomb. Just because that same chip could be used as a part of a weapon does not make it an armament, any more than a sock is an "armament" because it could be stuffed down an opposing soldier's throat while you berate him for failing to respect the Imperial majesty of Blaccakre!

We manufacture a wide range of parts that, I suppose, could be used to build weapons. That doesn't make them military arms. They could also be used to build tractors, agricultural systems, and desktop computers.

"This is a very common misreading, and any suggestions as to how I might prevent it would be appreciated. However, just because an item is an armament doesn't mean it can't be traded. The trade of one computer chip could be proscribed in one instance and legal in another. Whether or not an item can be traded is completely dependent on clause seven, not whether or not it's considered an armament. Hint: don't trade items that could be reasonably weaponized with terrorists and you should be fine."

OOC: I'm assuming this is OOC, because you referenced Voltaire, so I'll respond OOC as well. My IC ambassador and Sciongrad are both ideologically opposed to your "free trade, even if it supports genocide" idea, and I don't want to get into an extended debate out of character over the issue, unless you want to bring it back IC.

OOC: Apologies on missing the tag.

IC: As both a member of the New Liberals and as directed by the coalition government, the official policy of this delegation has always been for the protection of liberties whether condemnable or commendable. Fundamentally, that is the principal principle matter of principles which our principal delegate has been directed to convey by the principal Chair of the Foreign Committee.

OOC: No problem, I did the same thing.

IC: "To look at 'rights' from such an absolutist perspective is practically inviting abuse. Sciongrad guarantees its people the right to free speech, but one can be punished for screaming fire in a crowded theater. Sciongrad offers its people the right to free press, but publishing libel is a criminal offense. Similarly, Sciongrad has historically favored free trade - ask anybody - but we draw the line when our free trade is playing an active role in eroding the rights of others. If the government of Imperium Anglorum truly cares about 'rights,' then they'd put a little more effort into constructing a position that isn't inherently built upon destroying them."

[Blaccakre]

Just because an item is an armament doesn't mean it can't be traded. The trade of one computer chip could be proscribed in one instance and legal in another. Whether or not an item can be traded is completely dependent on clause seven, not whether or not it's considered an armament. Hint: don't trade items that could be reasonably weaponized with terrorists and you should be fine.

The proposal defines an armament as a weapon or "the parts necessary in their construction or production" and goes on to prohibit the trade of those parts:

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;

So a company in Blaccakre would be prohibited from selling their famously-effective PleaseDontUseTheseInMissles-brand computer chips to Banana Company, manufacturer of iFruit corded phones, because Banana Company intends to sell their product to a third party. In that case, the chips could be used in missiles, and therefore their trade to a manufacturer is prohibited because there is very good reason to suspect that the manufacturer will go on to sell them to some other recipient.

This is a very common misreading, and any suggestions as to how I might prevent it would be appreciated.

We would suggest removing the "parts necessary in their construction" bit from the definition. The definition of armaments is fine otherwise and with that provision included far too many ordinarily benign things fall under the act as "armaments."

[Imperium Anglorum]

IC: "To look at 'rights' from such an absolutist perspective is practically inviting abuse. Sciongrad guarantees its people the right to free speech, but one can be punished for screaming fire in a crowded theater. Sciongrad offers its people the right to free press, but publishing libel is a criminal offense. Similarly, Sciongrad has historically favored free trade - ask anybody - but we draw the line when our free trade is playing an active role in eroding the rights of others. If the government of Imperium Anglorum truly cares about 'rights,' then they'd put a little more effort into constructing a position that isn't inherently built upon destroying them."

'Rights also require the capacity to make mistakes. In those interests, the Empire has no want of enslaving others to our will (unless they are our colonies). The Empire does not believe that rights are infinite, but on the fabric of nations, the international plane upon which all things are built, there should exist no evangelising mission of protection in the name of the majority. And if the government were so much more invasive on the privileges of other nations, we would be destroying them in the name of paternalistic repression. It is much better to allow other nations to arrive at their local equilibria without mass intervention in economics, politics, or culture.'

So a company in Blaccakre would be prohibited from selling their famously-effective PleaseDontUseTheseInMissles-brand computer chips to Banana Company, manufacturer of iFruit corded phones, because Banana Company intends to sell their product to a third party. In that case, the chips could be used in missiles, and therefore their trade to a manufacturer is prohibited because there is very good reason to suspect that the manufacturer will go on to sell them to some other recipient.

'Or, perhaps, if your major steel producer sells steel to both the Imperial Guard and or the National Fund for the Advancement of Educational Buildings and Collegiate Construction — you would say that one cannot trade iron ore to them in that instance?'

'I must also add that as of yet, I do not see an issue in the logic reached by this conclusion. Though, I will add that the Honourable Ambassador from Sciongrad will likely call it a "misreading" again, no matter what you say.'

[Sciongrad]

So a company in Blaccakre would be prohibited from selling their famously-effective PleaseDontUseTheseInMissles-brand computer chips to Banana Company, manufacturer of iFruit corded phones, because Banana Company intends to sell their product to a third party. In that case, the chips could be used in missiles, and therefore their trade to a manufacturer is prohibited because there is very good reason to suspect that the manufacturer will go on to sell them to some other recipient.

"No. If Banana Company is the intended recipient of the transfer, even if Banana Company might choose to sell the product to a third party afterwards, then the trade is legal. The trade would only be illegal if there was reason to believe that the armaments traded would be sold by Banana Company at a later time to a group that would violate any of the terms of clause seven. The clause you're referring to would apply to situations where there is a likelihood that the armaments would not reach their intended destination, not in situations where products are traded more than once."

We would suggest removing the "parts necessary in their construction" bit from the definition. The definition of armaments is fine otherwise and with that provision included far too many ordinarily benign things fall under the act as "armaments."

"Absolutely not. That would remove all meaning from the clause."

'Rights also require the capacity to make mistakes. In those interests, the Empire has no want of enslaving others to our will (unless they are our colonies). The Empire does not believe that rights are infinite, but on the fabric of nations, the international plane upon which all things are built, there should exist no evangelising mission of protection in the name of the majority. And if the government were so much more invasive on the privileges of other nations, we would be destroying them in the name of paternalistic repression. It is much better to allow other nations to arrive at their local equilibria without mass intervention in economics, politics, or culture.'

"To assume that peoples ravaged by genocide and terrorism will somehow magically reach stability when foreign actors are actively exacerbating the political and economic factors that are causing genocide and terrorism in the first place either reeks of being intellectually disingenuous or exhibits a naively quixotic view of how the world works on the part of the most honorable ambassador. Either way, unfortunately for his Excellency of Imperium Anglorum, genocide doesn't solve itself. Simply claiming that people should solve their own problems doesn't make their nation any less culpable in perpetuating genocide, war, terrorism, slavery, and other atrocities."

'Or, perhaps, if your major steel producer sells steel to both the Imperial Guard and or the National Fund for the Advancement of Educational Buildings and Collegiate Construction — you would say that one cannot trade iron ore to them in that instance?'

"Unless the National Fund for the Advancement of Educational Buildings and Collegiate Construction is using that steel to commit violations of human rights, I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that they can't be traded with. A nation isn't prohibited from selling items that could be construed as armaments to all parties if one of those parties may violate clause seven; rather, all trades except for the one with the party that may violate clause seven are permitted."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"To assume that peoples ravaged by genocide and terrorism will somehow magically reach stability when foreign actors are actively exacerbating the political and economic factors that are causing genocide and terrorism in the first place either reeks of being intellectually disingenuous or exhibits a naively quixotic view of how the world works on the part of the most honorable ambassador. Either way, unfortunately for his Excellency of Imperium Anglorum, genocide doesn't solve itself. Simply claiming that people should solve their own problems doesn't make their nation any less culpable in perpetuating genocide, war, terrorism, slavery, and other atrocities."

"The general policy of the Empire is to remain uninvolved. You may believe that there is some kind of moral imperative to take immediate action. We do not. Actions are only taken in our self-interest, vis-à-vis realpolitik. This government sees no reason to take action against (OOC: valid role-play) unexpected national choices when our own citizens are not threatened. There is no need for an international paternalistic state."

'Or, perhaps, if your major steel producer sells steel to both the Imperial Guard and or the National Fund for the Advancement of Educational Buildings and Collegiate Construction — you would say that one cannot trade iron ore to them in that instance?'

"Unless the National Fund for the Advancement of Educational Buildings and Collegiate Construction is using that steel to commit violations of human rights, I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that they can't be traded with. A nation isn't prohibited from selling items that could be construed as armaments to all parties if one of those parties may violate clause seven; rather, all trades except for the one with the party that may violate clause seven are permitted."

"Your excellency, I was referencing the trade of iron ore to the major steel producer, not the Guard or the National Fund."

[Blaccakre]

"No. If Banana Company is the intended recipient of the transfer, even if Banana Company might choose to sell the product to a third party afterwards, then the trade is legal. The trade would only be illegal if there was reason to believe that the armaments traded would be sold by Banana Company at a later time to a group that would violate any of the terms of clause seven. The clause you're referring to would apply to situations where there is a likelihood that the armaments would not reach their intended destination, not in situations where products are traded more than once."

I don't see how this interpretation squares with the text, which plainly outlaws the trade in parts that could be use to make weapons if there is reason to believe that those parts might be diverted to someone other than their intended recipient. How can company A trade to company B knowing full well that company B will trade to someone else? What if company B is a regional supplier; that is, what if company B's whole job is to get the parts from Company A and then, without doing anything with them, sell them locally to folks who actually need those parts? Then Company A would know the parts are going to end up somewhere other than their original recipient, and if the parts could be used for weapons, the trade cannot go through (even if the thing actually being traded is not a weapon at all and has tons of non-weapon uses).

We would suggest removing the "parts necessary in their construction" bit from the definition. The definition of armaments is fine otherwise and with that provision included far too many ordinarily benign things fall under the act as "armaments."

"Absolutely not. That would remove all meaning from the clause."

Hint: don't trade items that could be reasonably weaponized with terrorists and you should be fine.

It's rather insulting to suggest that member nations are too stupid to interpret the word "armament" (which has a pretty good definition without the need for a special WA definition) reasonably, while at the same time suggesting that we're so clever that if you don't also regulate all the potential constituent parts of a weapon (benign or not) member nations would weasel around so much that the clause would lose "all meaning."

Frankly, we don't think the word "armament" needs a special definition as nations acting in good faith would see right through some bull shit about a big box of ready-to-assemble bomb parts not being an "armament." But if you're going to define armament, why not stick with a definition that's close to the actual definition of the word without adding on a tail that could effectively criminalize trade in sheet metal.

And if your point is "we shouldn't be trading sheet metal to terrorists" then (a) stop playing the terrorist card because it's played out and (b) why should we be trading anything with terrorists regardless of military applications. Those spooky terrorists could attack us with fertilizer and a match if they were persistent enough - or do you imagine this proposal covers that too?

[Sciongrad]

I don't see how this interpretation squares with the text, which plainly outlaws the trade in parts that could be use to make weapons if there is reason to believe that those parts might be diverted to someone other than their intended recipient. How can company A trade to company B knowing full well that company B will trade to someone else? What if company B is a regional supplier; that is, what if company B's whole job is to get the parts from Company A and then, without doing anything with them, sell them locally to folks who actually need those parts? Then Company A would know the parts are going to end up somewhere other than their original recipient, and if the parts could be used for weapons, the trade cannot go through (even if the thing actually being traded is not a weapon at all and has tons of non-weapon uses).

"Let me make this more clear. If Banana Company is the intended recipient, and the intended recipient receives the transferred item, then the object was not diverted, even if it was then traded again at a later point. For the item to be diverted, that would imply that it didn't reach the intended recipient. Clause eight prevents abuse of this by prohibiting the trade of said items into areas where the expectations of clause seven don't apply. So again, for emphasis: there is a difference between diverting an item from an intended recipient and the intended recipient then trading the item."

It's rather insulting to suggest that member nations are too stupid to interpret the word "armament" (which has a pretty good definition without the need for a special WA definition) reasonably, while at the same time suggesting that we're so clever that if you don't also regulate all the potential constituent parts of a weapon (benign or not) member nations would weasel around so much that the clause would lose "all meaning."

OOC: Sorry to rain on your parade, but dictionary.com's definition of armament is not what's used in real life agreements on the trade of international weapons. To not include the parts that make weapons in a resolution that is meant to prevent the trade of weapons is foolish. And to suggest that it's "so clever" to buy the parts of a weapon to build it instead of buying the weapon itself when the former is legal and the latter is illegal is confounding. That isn't clever, that's common sense. I'm truly sorry that this issue isn't as simple as you're making out to be, but I'm not even considering removing the aspect of the definition in question, so this argument is not a valuable use of our time.

Frankly, we don't think the word "armament" needs a special definition as nations acting in good faith would see right through some bull shit about a big box of ready-to-assemble bomb parts not being an "armament." But if you're going to define armament, why not stick with a definition that's close to the actual definition of the word without adding on a tail that could effectively criminalize trade in sheet metal.

Under the definition of armament you provided, trading big boxes of ready-to-assemble bomb parts to ethnic cleansers would not be proscribed. Your argument presupposes that all nations are willing to voluntarily adopt additional standards that go along with the spirit of the law when this resolution has been written specifically because that isn't the case. His Excellency of Imperium Anglorum has already demonstrated that there are nations that have no qualms trading anything with anyone, despite the consequences. Unless certain actions are explicitly prohibited, then they will continue to occur. Period.

And if your point is "we shouldn't be trading sheet metal to terrorists" then (a) stop playing the terrorist card because it's played out and (b) why should we be trading anything with terrorists regardless of military applications. Those spooky terrorists could attack us with fertilizer and a match if they were persistent enough - or do you imagine this proposal covers that too?

First of all, absolutely not. I'm not going to stop using terrorists as an example because this resolution has been written specifically to deal with groups like them. Secondly, I agree with you. We shouldn't trade anything with ethnic cleansers, slavers, and terrorists if it will abet their efforts to undermine human rights. Unfortunately, I have to be pragmatic, and banning trade of that nature would not fall under the scope of this resolution. Of course, I'm not going to entertain the unabashedly idiotic idea that fertilizer has a comparable military application to industrial steel. I'll try and make it clearer for you though, in case you have trouble understanding. Steel can be used to construct weapons that kill people. If it is known that the steel will be used in such a way that undermines human rights, it cannot be traded. Unlike steel, fertilizer and matches don't have a practical military application, which means it's unlikely that fertilizer could be used to undermine human rights. So before we continue, let's recap, shall we? Items that can be used to create weapons can't be traded if it is known that those items will be used to undermine human rights. Meaning you can't trade steel with the local imperialist dictator if you know he needs it to build weapons. But you can trade steel to groups that won't use it for purposes that undermine human rights, even though steel is considered an armament under the definition. Nifty, right?

[Viveret]

The technical term should not be firearms or ammunition, it should be "materiel."

No, that's not misspelled.

[Sciongrad]

The technical term should not be firearms or ammunition, it should be "materiel."

No, that's not misspelled.

"I'm wary of using materiel because it may be broader than I'd like. While materiel would indeed cover firearms and ammunition, it also generally applies to military equipment, and some critics might suggest that this resolution is more restrictive than I want it to be. I'll deliberate on this, but if you disagree with me, or if anyone else has any comments on whether or not to use materiel, please chime in."

"The general policy of the Empire is to remain uninvolved. You may believe that there is some kind of moral imperative to take immediate action. We do not. Actions are only taken in our self-interest, vis-à-vis realpolitik. This government sees no reason to take action against (OOC: valid role-play) unexpected national choices when our own citizens are not threatened. There is no need for an international paternalistic state."

(OOC: Of course it is! Don't let my disagreement with you deter you from roleplaying your nation however you want) "I'm sorry then, but it seems we are irreconcilably opposed at an ideological level. I am disappointed I cannot count on your Excellency's support, and hope that we can find common ground in the future."

"Your excellency, I was referencing the trade of iron ore to the major steel producer, not the Guard or the National Fund."

"Then it would be the steel producer who would have to limit who it trades its steel with, not the ore producer. Unless the trade is being conducted with a non-member state actor, in which case extra considerations must be made to prevent abuse as retailers or regional distributors in non-member nations are not bound by clause seven. I'll try to make that clearer in the text."

[Viveret]

How does, say, trade of nuclear material fall under this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

How does, say, trade of nuclear material fall under this?

I must say, I believe it would.

[Sciongrad]

How does, say, trade of nuclear material fall under this?

"It would be covered, as nuclear material can be reasonably weaponized. But again, only the trade of nuclear material to parties that may violate the provisions of clause seven is impacted."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

How does, say, trade of nuclear material fall under this?

They are already covered.

[CreepyCut]

Looks good.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: As if it's at all surprising, some Crusader for Justice out there has launched a counter-campaign. I doubt it will prevent this from reaching, and remaining, in quorum, but I never cease to be amazed at just how militaristic the WA has become.

[Little Tralfamadore]

"reason to suspect"? Suspect by whom?

Also a mere suspicion isn't exactly proof.

[Jarish Inyo]

"reason to suspect"? Suspect by whom?

Also a mere suspicion isn't exactly proof.

According to Sciongrad, its the nation's government to decide if the is a ""reason to suspect". So really, It's up to a government if it wants to take the time to check the client of every arms manufacture and approve every individual sale. Or what constitutes "reason to suspect" for them to deny the sale or shipment. Depending on the nation, all this really does is require an extra form to the paperwork.

[Sciongrad]

"reason to suspect"? Suspect by whom?

Also a mere suspicion isn't exactly proof.

According to Sciongrad, its the nation's government to decide if the is a ""reason to suspect". So really, It's up to a government if it wants to take the time to check the client of every arms manufacture and approve every individual sale. Or what constitutes "reason to suspect" for them to deny the sale or shipment. Depending on the nation, all this really does is require an extra form to the paperwork.

OOC: This is wrong. You're either unwilling to understand what the clause actually means because you're ideologically opposed or you simply don't understand what I've been telling you. Please take another good read of what we've already gone over. If you still can't understand, then I'll try and explain it again. Unless, of course, you're intentionally spreading misinformation, in which case I'd really prefer it if you stopped.

[Abazhaka]

It has come to my attention that this proposal violates an often used tactic in the area of international diplomacy. many countries in real life have supplied arms to a nation with the hopes of destroying a regime, through an invasion by that nation you are knowingly supplying arms for an invasion. Furthermore, this proposal could be limited to the banning of the sales of all purely offensive weapons to ensure that a World Assembly member nations are in no way to blame for the invasion of one country into another. That is why I suggest you limit this proposal to only ban the sale of offensive weapons and weapon components to non member nations. Radioactive element sales should be regulated as well. I am sorry if I am repeating something already posted, but that is what I believe needs to be changed.

[Jarish Inyo]

According to Sciongrad, its the nation's government to decide if the is a ""reason to suspect". So really, It's up to a government if it wants to take the time to check the client of every arms manufacture and approve every individual sale. Or what constitutes "reason to suspect" for them to deny the sale or shipment. Depending on the nation, all this really does is require an extra form to the paperwork.

OOC: This is wrong. You're either unwilling to understand what the clause actually means because you're ideologically opposed or you simply don't understand what I've been telling you. Please take another good read of what we've already gone over. If you still can't understand, then I'll try and explain it again. Unless, of course, you're intentionally spreading misinformation, in which case I'd really prefer it if you stopped.

This is not wrong. You stated it's the nation's government to determine "reason to suspect". A nation determine what constitutes "reason to suspect" for itself. You can keep saying it is wrong, but it is not. "Reason to suspect" is subjective even in the legal world.

[Separatist Peoples]

It has come to my attention that this proposal violates an often used tactic in the area of international diplomacy. many countries in real life have supplied arms to a nation with the hopes of destroying a regime, through an invasion by that nation you are knowingly supplying arms for an invasion. Furthermore, this proposal could be limited to the banning of the sales of all purely offensive weapons to ensure that a World Assembly member nations are in no way to blame for the invasion of one country into another. That is why I suggest you limit this proposal to only ban the sale of offensive weapons and weapon components to non member nations. Radioactive element sales should be regulated as well. I am sorry if I am repeating something already posted, but that is what I believe needs to be changed.

"An what, pray tell, is an offensive weapon, exactly?"

[Abazhaka]

It has come to my attention that this proposal violates an often used tactic in the area of international diplomacy. many countries in real life have supplied arms to a nation with the hopes of destroying a regime, through an invasion by that nation you are knowingly supplying arms for an invasion. Furthermore, this proposal could be limited to the banning of the sales of all purely offensive weapons to ensure that a World Assembly member nations are in no way to blame for the invasion of one country into another. That is why I suggest you limit this proposal to only ban the sale of offensive weapons and weapon components to non member nations. Radioactive element sales should be regulated as well. I am sorry if I am repeating something already posted, but that is what I believe needs to be changed.

"An what, pray tell, is an offensive weapon, exactly?"

any weapon not of a purely defensive or non lethal nature. a good example of defensive weapons would be stationary Anti Aircraft missile launchers, armor upgrades for vehicles, crowd control weapons, barbed wire, anti tank guns, shield generators (if such a thing exists), missile defense systems, unarmed UAV craft, radar, fortifications, and other things of this nature. where as bombers and tanks would be an example of offensive weapons. Also a degree of common sense is needed when determining the offensive or defensive nature of something.

[Kaboomlandia]

And we're at vote.