[PASSED] Repeal "The Landmine Convention"

[Araraukar]

Again, good luck, but not going to hold my breath to see this passed.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Are there any final comments? Otherwise, I will try a submission. Given it's been suggested to me there are people voting against my proposals solely because they are written by me, this one represents an interesting conundrum: will they vote against my repeal, or to repeal my original resolution?

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad offers its support. I would prefer to see a resolution reasonably regulating the use of land mines, but I do understand how excessive restrictions can compromise the security of member nations."

[Imperializt Russia]

"Sciongrad offers its support. I would prefer to see a resolution reasonably regulating the use of land mines, but I do understand how excessive restrictions can compromise the security of member nations."

OOC, I've been considering writing one, but I'm novice to the WA, still.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I included the "Heartened" line to highlight that a future resolution on landmines could be written once this was repealed, and I'd happily contribute to any such effort - though I've written the repeal so as not to make its argument depend on other legislation being passed.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad offers its support. I would prefer to see a resolution reasonably regulating the use of land mines, but I do understand how excessive restrictions can compromise the security of member nations."

OOC, I've been considering writing one, but I'm novice to the WA, still.

OOC: Take a shot at it! I'm sure any of the regulars, myself included, would be willing to offer assistance. After all, drafting is what this forum is for. [/off topic]

[Separatist Peoples]

"Sciongrad offers its support. I would prefer to see a resolution reasonably regulating the use of land mines, but I do understand how excessive restrictions can compromise the security of member nations."

"The C.D.S.P. is incredibly wary of any repeal of the Landmine Convention, but this draft is well written and takes an approach more reasonable than previous incarnations. I echo my esteemed colleague's opinions. Not that I've ever felt a repeal must promise or depend on one, but I must ask, is the Dark Star delegation planning a replacement at this time?"

OOC, I've been considering writing one, but I'm novice to the WA, still.

OOC: Your technical expertise proven here and in General, and your inclination to debate before drafting is indicative of many of the qualities expected of authors. You should absolutely give it a shot. Not that you need permission.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The C.D.S.P. is incredibly wary of any repeal of the Landmine Convention, but this draft is well written and takes an approach more reasonable than previous incarnations. I echo my esteemed colleague's opinions. Not that I've ever felt a repeal must promise or depend on one, but I must ask, is the Dark Star delegation planning a replacement at this time?

"No.

"We tried to write the repeal in such a way to make clear that the repeal would allow further legislation on landmines, but not commit us to providing that legislation ourselves. We have voiced, elsewhere, our dislike of the practice of disingenuously appealing to the promise of replacements the author has no plans to deliver. So if that clause of the repeal is still misleading, we will change it.

"If we did ever consider such legislation, it would concentrate on demining rather than outright bans, so it would not be a true 'replacement' anyway."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[The Dark Star Republic]

Submitted.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The Federal Republic/Mysterion Rising rises in support of this repeal. With all due respect to the original author, we find the ban obsolete as it fails to take into account more modernized forms of landmines which, as the repeal clearly states, do not pose significant risk of civilian harm. We also feel that as the WA has strangely adopted the Knootian view that chemical weapons are good, there's little reason to ban other types of weaponry that could help less-developed nations defend themselves against foes who would be mad enough to employ chemical warfare.

- Jimmy Baca,
What was my fucking job again?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Upon reconsideration, I can support this."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Seeing as this has already come up again, I'll clarify again that I'm not personally going to propose replacement legislation, or at least not a direct replacement - I have a draft on UXO that overlaps a bit that might crop up at some stage - and I worded the "heartened" clause so as to avoid giving that impression. If anyone wants to, they are more than welcome to and don't even need my permission, but I don't want to give a misleading impression. This is the fourth proposal on landmines I've submitted, rivalling even Quelesh and Habeas Corpus, and I'm a bit landmined-out. None of which affects how my nation would contribute to or vote on anyone else's submissions.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: fwiw, I only asked for clarification on your goals, not out of a demand for a replacement. I know I'd be interested in seeing an UXO draft.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Ooc: fwiw, I only asked for clarification on your goals, not out of a demand for a replacement. I know I'd be interested in seeing an UXO draft.

Not you, I was referring to a couple of TGs I got :)

[Dogs of War]

We support this. If you need any help in promoting It or if there is anything we can to to help you in any other way feel free to contact us directly. This is a very good and nessesary proposal.

[Hakio]

[box]

Repeal "The Landmine Convention
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #40 | Proposed by: ???

Argument: The World Assembly,

Taking note of the passage of WA Resolution #40, "The Landmine Convention",

Troubled that the definition of "landmine" used in this resolution includes mines designed to become non-operational after a certain time has elapsed,

"Even such tediously contended 'time related disoperating mines' could still be made defective and thus still have the chance of accidental detonation. If there's a mechanism that deactivates it, there must also be a mechanism to activate it once again. Also, most mines are not put in the ground to be detonated at a specific time. The point of landmines is pressure activation and thus are usually operational in any given spot. We find it unlikely that in times of total war between two nations they would set out landmines that are only intended to be used between specific time slots. Also, even if there were, it would still be the government's responsibility to dispose of possible explosive devices from populated areas."

[Chester Pearson]

[box]

Repeal "The Landmine Convention
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #40 | Proposed by: ???

Argument: The World Assembly,

Taking note of the passage of WA Resolution #40, "The Landmine Convention",

Troubled that the definition of "landmine" used in this resolution includes mines designed to become non-operational after a certain time has elapsed,

"Even such tediously contended 'time related disoperating mines' could still be made defective and thus still have the chance of accidental detonation. If there's a mechanism that deactivates it, there must also be a mechanism to activate it once again. Also, most mines are not put in the ground to be detonated at a specific time. The point of landmines is pressure activation and thus are usually operational in any given spot. We find it unlikely that in times of total war between two nations they would set out landmines that are only intended to be used between specific time slots. Also, even if there were, it would still be the government's responsibility to dispose of possible explosive devices from populated areas."

You do realize HE passed the original on an older nation correct?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

You do realize HE passed the original on an older nation correct?

By that logic, anyone complaining about how godawful Star Wars prequels or Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull are has no leg to stand on - you do realize Lucas made the originals on an older frame of mind, correct? Hmm, and yet... Ergo this logic fails.

The alliances, affiliations, shared sovereignty, and multiple citizenship of any particular nation or its leaders are of no concern in deciding what the law ought to be, Mr. Pearson. If the Quintessential ambassador came back tomorrow and addressed the Assembly to the effect of "Oh shit, hey, guys, listen - that thing I wrote about human trafficking was ten kinds of garbage and bollocks, or has become so in the intervening time - we should totally repeal it;" that would not constitute a valid argument in favor of repeal.

My government needs to consider whether the valid arguments for repealing this are sufficient to overcome our reluctance to revive the use of deploy-and-forget style anti-personnel weapons; we must therefore register our neutrality to the repeal at this time. Should it come to the floor we will actually vote one way or the other. In any case, Colonel Bilgewater, I hope you'll extend our thanks to your delegation for at the very least putting the work in on this.

[Imperializt Russia]

[box]

Repeal "The Landmine Convention
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #40 | Proposed by: ???

Argument: The World Assembly,

Taking note of the passage of WA Resolution #40, "The Landmine Convention",

Troubled that the definition of "landmine" used in this resolution includes mines designed to become non-operational after a certain time has elapsed,

"Even such tediously contended 'time related disoperating mines' could still be made defective and thus still have the chance of accidental detonation. If there's a mechanism that deactivates it, there must also be a mechanism to activate it once again. Also, most mines are not put in the ground to be detonated at a specific time. The point of landmines is pressure activation and thus are usually operational in any given spot. We find it unlikely that in times of total war between two nations they would set out landmines that are only intended to be used between specific time slots. Also, even if there were, it would still be the government's responsibility to dispose of possible explosive devices from populated areas."

This logic would appear to be based on a rather simplistic understanding of area denial as a practice.
Artillery-deployed and bomblet-dispersed mines (as opposed to submunitions and bomblets themselves) may feature time delays on self-destruction for a variety of reasons - the existence of such dispersal mechanisms is partly for a rapid response to an oncoming threat. The fact this avenue this threat is using has not already been mined would imply you intend to use it yourself, for which mining "properly" is undesirable.

Landmines exist to funnel forces into chokepoints and to delay advances. Relating back to funnelling, they can also used to defend hard-to-defend areas - forests, mountain passes, etc - so that resources can be better spent defending other, funnelled avenues of approach. Mines need claim no lives to be effective.
Hence why I believe that it is the responsibility of the deploying force to make note of where mines are deployed and to make safe non-strategic minefields at the cessation of hostilities.

You do realize HE passed the original on an older nation correct?

By that logic, anyone complaining about how godawful Star Wars prequels or Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull are has no leg to stand on - you do realize Lucas made the originals on an older frame of mind, correct? Hmm, and yet... Ergo this logic fails.

GAR#40 can be retconned out of existence through repeal. Star Wars I-III, not for lack of trying on the part of internet nerds, cannot.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

By that logic, anyone complaining about how godawful Star Wars prequels or Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull are has no leg to stand on - you do realize Lucas made the originals on an older frame of mind, correct? Hmm, and yet... Ergo this logic fails.

GAR#40 can be retconned out of existence through repeal. Star Wars I-III, not for lack of trying on the part of internet nerds, cannot.

What on earth is your point? Mine was that the original author doesn't like it anymore isn't actually an argument in favor of repeal.

[Imperializt Russia]

GAR#40 can be retconned out of existence through repeal. Star Wars I-III, not for lack of trying on the part of internet nerds, cannot.

What on earth is your point? Mine was that the original author doesn't like it anymore isn't actually an argument in favor of repeal.

Of course it is.

The resolution is arguably not fit for purpose anymore. I have made basically that argument in other debates. The author agrees it is no longer fit for purpose. It just so happens he's the only person currently bothered to repeal it.

[Hakio]

"You still haven't addressed the fact that any given explosive device left in the ground under certain circumstances could become live again thus posing a risk to civilian populations. The dispersal of land mines is usually not recorded hence why they pose a risk to civilian populations and are too dangerous to be allowed in modern combat."

[Imperializt Russia]

I find "too dangerous for modern combat" to be an interesting assertion, especially since chemical weapons for defensive use were legalised partly on the basis that landmines were illegal.

Civilians are already offered (or were, can't remember if the ICC repeal withdrew them) protections in war that could easily be extended to less discriminate weapon systems such as area-denial weapons and particularly landmines.
What critically needs to be done, in the case of artillery and bomblet-dispersed landmines, is that these munitions must be authorised for use by a senior commander, and their individual use recorded. All that's really required is a vague location, since a demining operation will ascertain the presence of mines and false positives.

[The Dark Star Republic]

What on earth is your point? Mine was that the original author doesn't like it anymore isn't actually an argument in favor of repeal.

Of course it is.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I roleplay my WA activities (or try to); my OOC view of landmine regulation is a subject for NS General, not the WA. Were I to revive Quintessence of Dust, the nation with which I wrote the original resolution, I would not propose this repeal with that nation. This is a different nation, representing different viewpoints. That there is a lot of OOC/IC mangling in the current WA is unfortunate, but it shouldn't obscure the fact that in character, the nation proposing this repeal has little relationship to the one that proposed the original resolution. The way I've played the relationship in the past is DSR happens to have been assigned the old QoD WA Office in the WA Headquarters by Building Mgmt, and has found a folder full of their old draft proposals and resolution notes.

In any case, I'd prefer the debate to focus on the content of the resolution and repeal, and I think that's actually a stronger case anyway for repeal than trying to pretend I've changed my mind.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"You still haven't addressed the fact that any given explosive device left in the ground under certain circumstances could become live again thus posing a risk to civilian populations. The dispersal of land mines is usually not recorded hence why they pose a risk to civilian populations and are too dangerous to be allowed in modern combat."

"As you say, that is true of 'any' explosive device. Every year, farmers tending fields are killed by explosive remnants of war. That doesn't in itself mean we should outlaw artillery shells.

"In any case, the WA is currently voting down a measure to stop nations from indiscriminately nuking civilian populations. I'm not sure what the WA considers an appropriate level of danger for 'modern combat' is quite in sync with your own conception."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA